[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Is a crime (say, robbery) worse because it was committed while the criminal happened to be armed? In and of itself, of course not.

Originally Posted by Metro 40

I disagree. And so would most people, I think. Let's take your robbery example. It's one thing to threaten to kick someone's ass if they don't hand over their wallet. (Strongarm robbery) It's quite another thing to employ a weapon and threaten to take someone's life if they don't comply. (Armed robbery) The law has long held that crimes committed with deadly weapons (of any type) are worse than other crimes, due to the sanctity of human life. Felonies are enhanced in Indiana Code when a deadly weapon is used, with harsher penalties prescribed.

Sorry, that's not what I was saying. I agree with you re: the criminal using the weapon with which he/she is armed during the crime. I'm referring to someone simply having something on his/her person at that time. During a rebellious phase my daughter went through a couple of years ago, she was interested in a guy that was convicted of armed robbery when this is exactly what he'd done, or so it was reported to me. I do not approve of the guy and made it clear he was NOT welcome here at the house, and further, I don't know whether to believe the above report, but that's what was in my head when I was typing that. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

That said, though, I can see some benefit and some detriment: If the rightful owner loaded his magazine before his gun was stolen and the criminal was gloved, only the rightful owner's DNA will appear, which could quickly lead to wrongful convictions. Of course there are all kinds of "what if" scenarios, but that's the first one that came to mind for me. As long as criminals aren't freed and innocents imprisoned, I don't have issue with this.

Originally Posted by Metro 40

It's not easy to get a criminal conviction in a jury trial, if all aspects are working as they should. (Judge, jury, prosecution, defense) Of course, nothing human is perfect, but I think our criminal justice system is better for the accused than most systems around the world.

The DNA collected with these kits is intended to be used to strengthen a case, and is only one element of the entire picture that is used to develop enough probable cause to charge an individual with a crime. Witness statements and other evidence, coupled with the DNA, should be used to meet the burden of proof....beyond a reasonable doubt. The owner of a handgun whose DNA is found on it is certainly not guilty of a crime just because he touched the gun. All elements must prove him guilty. If someone is falsely convicted on flimsy evidence, the prosecutor, defense AND the jury all share some blame.

True. But their sharing of blame will not take away the time the innocent man was confined and all the things which accompany that confinement while his case is taken to the Court of Appeals to be hopefully righted. That said, as part of the evidence, I can find no issue.

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

The question to be asked as to "everything gov't does is an attack on gun rights" is if the potential for abuse by unscrupulous officers and/or officeholders outweighs the potential benefit by those who can be trusted.

Originally Posted by Metro 40

That's the million dollar question. I think it all depends on if you see the people who work in the criminal justice system as mostly decent folks, with a few real scumbags, or mostly real scumbags, with just a few decent folks. (Now THERE'S a thread for discussion! ) I can tell you that the huge majority of the people I have worked with in LE and the courts have been good people, tasked with a difficult job. Most go their whole careers with little fanfare and do a good job, and others fail spectacularly, as we have seen in the news lately.

Being close to the issue, I see these kits as a positive thing in helping to build solid cases that remove some of the most dangerous criminals from our society.

I know a police officer who I once heard tell another that when they got to the jail, "I'M taking off the cuffs". The implication I got from hearing him say this was that the suspect was expected to fight him, and he wanted the satisfaction of beating the suspect into submission. That officer is a good cop, but that exchange could have been taken to indicate otherwise. Sadly, their fellows do not very often "out" them as such, and the public pays the price.
Lest this be taken other than as I mean it, I am most emphatically NOT bashing cops. I respect the job done by those who take their oath and duty seriously and really do pin on a shield with the intention "to protect and to serve". The few bad apples on power trips make all the good ones look bad, however, much as a clean floor will make one dirty spot stand out. Murphy's law in action. You do a difficult job, and for going out and doing it, I thank you. It is not you about whom I worry, but rather about prosecutors pushing their own agendas, judges circumventing the law because they don't like it, etc. I'm not willing to let even one corrupt officeholder maintain his/her office unchallenged if their corrupt viewpoint will possibly affect my rights or life.

Blessings,
B