On site DNA recovery.

[Metro 40]

Originally Posted by TRWXXA

The point is... Wouldn't it be handy if they could have invented a kit that could also collect DNA evidence from a knife, or a baseball bat (or the candlestick found in the library with Professor Plum).

*removes tounge from cheek*

Ah, I see! I guess some people see everything the government does an attack on gun rights.

That is not what these kits are about at all. The simple fact of the matter is, gun crime is by far the most prevalent type of violent crime in Indianapolis, or any other city for that matter. This is why criminals using guns are specifically being targeted. There is no reason why these kits cannot be used to obtain DNA from other surfaces, of course. Knives, ball bats, etc would probably all yield a DNA sample. But this techology is new for us, and that's why it is being concentrated on the most widely occuring type of violent crime.

DNA collection has never been done in the field at this level. In the past, DNA collection was restricted to actual body fluids on the scene, submitted to the crime lab. Not trace amounts of skin cells. The ABILITY to obtain a usuable DNA profile from such a small amount of skin cells, collectable in the field by evidence technicians, is something new.

Another factor is cost. The public typically is most frightened of the effects of violent crimes perpetrated with guns. This new techology is first being concentrated on gun crimes because THAT is the hot issue right now. Later, after the techology is field-tested and proven, I expect DNA collection of this type to be more common in non-violent crimes such as burglaries, high-dollar property crimes, etc. But DNA analysis is not cheap, so initially, the focus must be on the highest priority cases.

If we have a case where a knife or other weapon is used in a crime, of course we could use these kits to obtain DNA evidence. Unfortunately, as I said before, crimes committed by dirtbags with guns are far more common than violent crimes committed with other types of weapons.

Criminals with guns are one of the biggest threats to the rights of the law-abiding gun owners in our nation. The liberal media are able to use gun crimes as ammunition in their arguments for more restrictions on guns and ammunition. Nevermind that it makes no sense to punish the law-abiding for the actions of the criminal....you know how the sheep think. I would hope that any tool that we have to solidify our cases against gun criminals and put them away in prison would be supported by those who abide by the law and use guns responsibly.

[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. 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. 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.

Blessings,
B

[Metro 40]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Blessings,
B

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.

[ATM]

Originally Posted by Metro 40

I would hope that any tool that we have to solidify our cases against gun criminals and put them away in prison would be supported by those who abide by the law and use guns responsibly.

What ifs aside, I strongly support any tool that can be used to put and keep BGs away. Could that same technology be used unscrupulously? Of course, but name one that can't. Further, the enforcement of current gun laws is the rational (or at least popular) answer to the irrational cry for more gun laws.

I boil it down to this: new kit allows police and prosecutors to go after the real (human) criminal responsible for the crime by collecting evidence from the previously criminalized tool (gun, knife, bat, gobstopper in sock, etc.) used during commission of crime.

Just my

[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

[RogerB]

Originally Posted by ATM

What ifs aside, I strongly support any tool that can be used to put and keep BGs away. Could that same technology be used unscrupulously? Of course, but name one that can't. Further, the enforcement of current gun laws is the rational (or at least popular) answer to the irrational cry for more gun laws.

I boil it down to this: new kit allows police and prosecutors to go after the real (human) criminal responsible for the crime by collecting evidence from the previously criminalized tool (gun, knife, bat, gobstopper in sock, etc.) used during commission of crime.

Just my

Agreed Alan....

[Ri22o]

Originally Posted by Metro 40

Ah, I see! I guess some people see everything the government does an attack on gun rights.

Wasn't that so much as I wasn't sure if the media and/or government was trying to negatively portray guns as only being possessed by criminals and only used in crimes. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have said that the kits are specifically for guns.

[Metro 40]

Originally Posted by Ri22o

Wasn't that so much as I wasn't sure if the media and/or government was trying to negatively portray guns as only being possessed by criminals and only used in crimes. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have said that the kits are specifically for guns.

Oh, don't get me started on the media...those morons.....if I have to read the phrase "Glock service revolver" one more time!

I didn't read the story in question, but I hope they weren't portraying gun owners in a bad light. Wouldn't surprise me, though, given the slant of most of these media types. I don't think that's the intention of our department, though. Most cops are pro 2A. A left-leaning cop is a rare bird, although there are a few lefty politicians with badges. The DNA story is probably a news release from the mayor, to show that IMPD is doing something to fight gun violence. We have had quite a few shootings this year, although it's mostly business disputes between independent street pharmacists. Still....gotta calm the sheep, you know.

[Metro 40]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

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

Thanks for your kind words. I agree that corruption should be rooted out wherever it is found. Seems like we are on a brisk pace in getting rid of some bad apples on our department....and I hear that there are a few high ranking ones that are in trouble with the Feds...it's about to hit the news in the next few days, if not sooner. It makes our job tougher in the short run, (you can imagine the comments we get) but I'm glad to see the dirty ones get booted out in the long run.

This is a good forum, fast becoming one of my favorites.

[RogerB]

Originally Posted by Metro 40

We have had quite a few shootings this year, although it's mostly business disputes between independent street pharmacists. Still....gotta calm the sheep, you know.

independent street pharmacists....