|
Bassetking posted:Which many, many departments will consider probable cause. Refusing to provide the police with the assistance they feel you should be providing is a great way to get done for failure to comply, or obstruction of criminal investigation. Saying "No" to the police, while 100% your constitutional right, is also one that is regularly abrogated with impunity. ... No, refusing to talk to police is not probable cause to suspect you committed a crime, and will not result in a warrant (and definitely not one that would hold up if challenged, which tends to lead to the entire case dying.) DemeaninDemon posted:DNAs really really easy to find since we shed it everywhere we go. Photos require cameras getting a clean shot while finger prints rely touching. DNA just falls off you. Which is legal.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Shlomo Palestein posted:...As others have echoed, since the fingerprint/dna is taken from a surface/room where many other people have been present, how can the prosecution possibly claim to know either is actually from the defendant without the consented print/dna? Short an actual direct sample, this sort of evidence is terrifically likely to be wrong. Just bring a DNA Sprayer with you into questioning. Want to deny a DNA test, fine, but before you go, you spray areas that you touched with this solution that contains the DNA of a hundred other people. Somehow, I bet that'd be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Solvency posted:Just bring a DNA Sprayer with you into questioning. Want to deny a DNA test, fine, but before you go, you spray areas that you touched with this solution that contains the DNA of a hundred other people. Somehow, I bet that'd be illegal. Vandalism of public property, would be my bet. (Yes, they would eventually need a cheek swab or similar to provide the evidence they'd use in court, but this would be good enough to get them initial warrants, which is all they would want it for anyway. Also, they could just clean the surface of contaminants before inviting you in if they were planning to take this approach.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Solvency posted:Just bring a DNA Sprayer with you into questioning. Want to deny a DNA test, fine, but before you go, you spray areas that you touched with this solution that contains the DNA of a hundred other people. Somehow, I bet that'd be illegal. Oh yea, spraying down the police station with a biohazard is a great way to get arrested. Remember kids, if the cop says "stop don't do that" you have to do what the cop says or it is a crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Solvency posted:Just bring a DNA Sprayer with you into questioning. Want to deny a DNA test, fine, but before you go, you spray areas that you touched with this solution that contains the DNA of a hundred other people. Somehow, I bet that'd be illegal. I mean, if you're wearing a coat, for example, that coat could've been on a public rack at any point in time and could have hair follicles of anyone else with a coat on the rack. And just to note: I don't think the police should be able to do this. I just also think there's enough doubt in the methodology that it shouldn't occur.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Oh did some of your DNA get on my latex gloves when I searched you for weapons? Sorry, we're keeping that information in your record citizen! Better not leave any DNA near the scene of a crime, because you're the first person we're going to accuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Shlomo Palestein posted:I don't think the police should be able to do this. Ok, but why? Assuming they work out the technical problems around getting and processing samples, and have to do the basic, no-poo poo-idiot step to verify they got the right person with the DNA on the chair or whatever, why can they point a security camera at the door but not swab the chairs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Ok, but why? Assuming they work out the technical problems around getting and processing samples, and have to do the basic, no-poo poo-idiot step to verify they got the right person with the DNA on the chair or whatever, why can they point a security camera at the door but not swab the chairs? Because they can then keep your DNA on file for future use. Say you're an outspoken critic of the department. They may just "find" some of your hair at a crime scene in the future. Better have a good alibi, or you're going away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Oh did some of your DNA get on my latex gloves when I searched you for weapons? Sorry, we're keeping that information in your record citizen! Better not leave any DNA near the scene of a crime, because you're the first person we're going to accuse. If someone's DNA is at a crime scene then yeah, I'd want the police to talk to that person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Because they can then keep your DNA on file for future use. So presupposing they're willing to break a law and tamper with a crime scene, you're hoping they'll follow this other law because they're just good, fair-minded people like that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
AndNowMax posted:If someone's DNA is at a crime scene then yeah, I'd want the police to talk to that person. Yeah and if "talk to that person" was all the cops would do with that info, I wouldn't have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah and if "talk to that person" was all the cops would do with that info, I wouldn't have a problem. Denying them information on who the actual killer might be is just going to result in them abusing/harassing/killing more innocent people as they thrash about in an effort to make it look like they're doing their jobs. The way to stop the abuse, harassment and murder is to hold them accountable for those behaviors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Denying them information on who the actual killer might be is just going to result in them abusing/harassing/killing more innocent people as they thrash about in an effort to make it look like they're doing their jobs. The way to stop the abuse, harassment and murder is to hold them accountable for those behaviors. And I don't think preventing the mass collection of citizen DNA evidence is "denying them information on who the actual killer might be."
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And I don't think preventing the mass collection of citizen DNA evidence is "denying them information on who the actual killer might be." It's this that's the problem you shits not DNA itself. Another database someone may show up in and get railed by cops with. Bonus points for it not being definite due to butt DNA being from many possible butts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It's this that's the problem you shits not DNA itself. Another database someone may show up in and get railed by cops with. Bonus points for it not being definite due to butt DNA being from many possible butts. Yep. I'm amazed that people here are having problems grasping the concept of a limiting principle, and why that is something very important to have laid down for things like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
I might be a little late on this but look at what Cory Booker's best pal has been up to: http://forward.com/articles/215703/outrage-spreads-over-shmuley-boteach-genocide-ad-s/
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Quote of the day, “It’s all political and of those who should be supportive of any should be the Congressional Black Caucus. When you look at the oppression, when you look at the culture of enduring faith the Jewish people have had since the beginning of time and you look at the oppression that the blacks have suffered not only here in this country but elsewhere around the world there’s a common bond there.” ~ Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL), on who should attend Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, and why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It's this that's the problem you shits not DNA itself. Another database someone may show up in and get railed by cops with. Bonus points for it not being definite due to butt DNA being from many possible butts. Fried Chicken posted:Yep. I'm amazed that people here are having problems grasping the concept of a limiting principle, and why that is something very important to have laid down for things like this. So you're recognizing there's problem behavior but you want to put some arbitrary limit on unrelated behavior in the hope that maybe one will affect the other once in a while. Meanwhile the cops know they're being forced to potentially waste a ton of time re-acquiring information and hey who could be annoyed by that? E: I'm down with limiting acceptable law enforcement behavior but lets put the limits in sane places and enforce them rather than making them arbitrary and counter-productive in the hope that unrelated problems are also solved by osmosis or whatever. Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:So you're recognizing there's problem behavior but you want to put some arbitrary limit on unrelated behavior in the hope that maybe one will affect the other once in a while. Meanwhile the cops know they're being forced to potentially waste a ton of time re-acquiring information and hey who could be annoyed by that? Are you loving insane?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So I'm not seeing much in the way of coverage about the latest with DHS funding or the debt limit today, despite them both being on the hot seat shortly. Plenty about the fuckups leading to last weeks 1 week extension for DHS, a bunch of blather in the lead up to the SCOTUS hearing on the ACA, but not much on what is being done with DHS today or what will happen with the debt ceiling. The Senate just now voted to reject cloture on the motion to conference H.R. 240 (the DHS bill) 47-43 and then voted to table the motion 58-31. This sets up the procedural trick I described yesterday that allows any member of the House to move that the chambers are is disagreement, which privileges any motion to dispose of amendments. This means that Pelosi, or any other member, can bring a vote to the floor to wipe the House bill clean of any pesky language that defunded Obama's immigration actions without needing to go through Boehner and the Rules Committee, giving the House the opportunity to vote on a clean bill without laying any of the blame for doing so on the Republican leadership. So look for that to happen tomorrow or later in the week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Are you loving insane? I think I admitted as much a few posts ago 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
National Review goes to a new level of crazy: Netanyahu, Not Obama, Speaks for Us
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:National Review goes to a new level of crazy: Netanyahu, Not Obama, Speaks for Us Good god this article hits every awful note just perfectly, but this quote is what did me in: quote:As Barack Obama complains (with scant grasp of the historical context) about how Christians were such gosh-darn meanies a thousand years ago in the Crusades,
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
I guess the title should have done it for me, but that first two sentences really declared, "you don't need to read any further."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
quote:The leader of the free world will be addressing Congress on Tuesday. The American president is doing everything possible to undermine him. quote:Benjamin Netanyahu of course speaks first for Israel, but he speaks also for you and for me, for decency and humaneness, and for vigilance and strength against truly evil adversaries. Congress, by inviting him, is wise. Obama, by opposing him, is horribly wrong. And the civilized world, if it ignores him, will be well-nigh suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:un huh Man, they are not even trying to hide biased propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
I don't know where to put this but since Netanyahu is stirring poo poo with conservatives this week can someone explain a tiny little thing to me? All of this non-sense seems predicated on the idea that Iran would want to nuke Israel. Which I am sure in political/ideological hyperbolic terms would be a fine idea for them to bandy about (For them, for the record I do not support nuking Israel), but under this hypothetical what on earth would Iran have to gain by doing that? I mean first of all Israel would nuke the poo poo out of them but aside from that, what would they gain from doing it? I mean if loving hating someone's guts and wishing them to be wiped from the face of the earth was enough I have a feeling that India and Pakistan would have nuked the poo poo out of each other long ago. Is understanding this whole US political issue really predicated on the idea that if someone was to hand Iran a nuke right now that they would nuke Tel Aviv? Because I just can't, that is insane, even by the religious holy war standards. Iran is not a failed state. Three Olives fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Their leader is a brown man in a turban, clearly they are not rational enough for MAD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Most every American literally believes Iran is run by evil Mullahs who wish to see every Jew and Christian burn in Nuclear Fire, yes ANY DAY NOW
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I don't know where to put this but since Netanyahu is stirring poo poo with conservatives this week can someone explain a tiny little thing to me? There are several parts to this answer. Most simply and directly, if Iran gets the bomb they get to join a rather exclusive club. This means national power and prestige and further entrenches them as a regional power. Israel and the U.S. don't like Iran so neither country likes the idea of them doing something cool, like successfully building nuclear weapons. And, if Iran gets nuclear weapons then it's understood that their regional rival Saudi Arabia will also decide to get them, so as to have an independent deterrent. So if you don't like arms races that's bad. Plus, Iran is not a failed state now but it's still possible for it to become one in the future, and a failed state with nuclear arms is bad bad bad bad bad. There's also a concern that Iran's nuclear arms, or at least nuclear material, could fall into the wrong hands, either intentionally (only slightly less suicidal than an outright strike) or through a command breakdown or subversion of military control at a lower level. The same concerns here exist for Pakistan, incidentally. Consider that Iran's strategy for protecting its nuclear forces from a surprise first strike will probably mirror Pakistan's: put the weapons on trucks or trains and keep them moving around a lot. This helps guard against a counterforce attack, but it means that for at least part of the time your warheads are only guarded by however many people you assign to the convoy... and you're trying to disguise them so you didn't bring a huge number. A couple of sympathetic officers, or a well-planned surprise attack, and a third party acquires nuclear bombs. The point of it all is basically that while nobody who knows what they're talking about really thinks Iran will try to nuke Israel if they get the bomb, there are a bunch of other things that a nuclear Iran will or could mean that the U.S. and Israel don't want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I don't know where to put this but since Netanyahu is stirring poo poo with conservatives this week can someone explain a tiny little thing to me? I'd imagine the repeat calling for the destruction of israel by Iran's supreme leader might make some people a little uneasy. Especially since he's the leader or so many drat armed forces within Iran. And he's also the highest political and religious authority in Iran. The logic of the positive and negative consequences probably wouldn't matter to someone with the highest religious authority especially when they feel it's their duty to destroy a country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:The point of it all is basically that while nobody who knows what they're talking about really thinks Iran will try to nuke Israel if they get the bomb, there are a bunch of other things that a nuclear Iran will or could mean that the U.S. and Israel don't want. That I agree with, which is what I thought we were talking about but it seems like this whole debate is around Netanyahu, ostensibly a serious world leader, actually believes Iran would nuke Israel. That is absurd, can we not have the serious discussion of nuclear proliferation politics without entertaining this non-sense. Either Netanyahu actually believes this against all reason and as such shouldn't be taken seriously or he is playing some insane farce based on everyone else being idiots, neither is helpful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Netanyahu's brother was killed by terrorists, he has an axe to grind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:The point of it all is basically that while nobody who knows what they're talking about really thinks Iran will try to nuke Israel if they get the bomb. Oh boy! It's not like Israel hasn't made repeated threats/attempts to invade, occupy, bomb, and deploy of nuclear weapons against its neighbors before. Israel is also well on its way to becoming a failed state in lieu of a massive demographics crisis. Even with all the money we give them, the IDF can't do anything but gently caress up every invasion of southern Lebanon and Gaza- and they're the only thing that's functional about their entire political apparatus. Why is Israel allowed to have nukes? Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:un huh Freedom to subjugate and oppress those weaker than you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:That I agree with, which is what I thought we were talking about but it seems like this whole debate is around Netanyahu, ostensibly a serious world leader, actually believes Iran would nuke Israel. That is absurd, can we not have the serious discussion of nuclear proliferation politics without entertaining this non-sense. Either Netanyahu actually believes this against all reason and as such shouldn't be taken seriously or he is playing some insane farce based on everyone else being idiots, neither is helpful. He has an election coming up and polls suggest he might not win a plurality (first dibs to cobble a coalition together) and I think that's really what this is about. Khameini wants to destroy Israel through referendum apparently  worked for California 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I'd imagine the repeat calling for the destruction of israel by Iran's supreme leader might make some people a little uneasy. Especially since he's the leader or so many drat armed forces within Iran. And he's also the highest political and religious authority in Iran. To be fair, he called for the destruction of Israel by plebiscite of all original inhabitants of Israel (immigrants excluded), not by killing all the jews. efb
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:That I agree with, which is what I thought we were talking about but it seems like this whole debate is around Netanyahu, ostensibly a serious world leader, actually believes Iran would nuke Israel. That is absurd, can we not have the serious discussion of nuclear proliferation politics without entertaining this non-sense. Either Netanyahu actually believes this against all reason and as such shouldn't be taken seriously or he is playing some insane farce based on everyone else being idiots, neither is helpful. I mean, if that's your question then yeah Netanyahu's grandstanding here to drum up support. He just has to bet that the right people are idiots so he can get what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Oh boy! It's not like Israel hasn't made repeated threats/attempts to invade, occupy, bomb, and deploy of nuclear weapons against its neighbors before. Israel is also well on its way to becoming a failed state in lieu of a massive demographics crisis. Why is Israel allowed to have nukes? The US isn't doing such a hot job with our nukes according to recent reports from our own government so I feel like we should just all agree that nukes are bad and there should be far fewer of them as a general global policy, even if zero is unrealistic. We arguably did it with chemical and biological weapons, I feel like we should all just agree that Iran should not have nukes and neither should Israel. Wait, are we still pretending that Israel doesn't have a bunch of nukes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I mean, if that's your question then yeah Netanyahu's grandstanding here to drum up support. He just has to bet that the right people are idiots so he can get what he wants. More importantly, what do Israelis back at home think about all of this? Will he even survive the next election?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:10
|
|