insaniak wrote:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
But your singling out males as suspects, ....

That tends to happen when a woman is raped by a man.

But maybe it was a feminist lesbian with a slong!

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

That's what I said and it spawned like 5 pages of me and Dreadclaw talking past each other

RFID chips under the skin, too. What good is knowing who did it by the magic of the DNA bank if you can't find them?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

That's what I said and it spawned like 5 pages of me and Dreadclaw talking past each other

If we can ba assured that the samples were anonymous until a specific warrant is done ID the samples... maybe.

The real question is this: Can we trust our government with that sort of thing?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
RFID chips under the skin, too. What good is knowing who did it by the magic of the DNA bank if you can't find them?

Those can be circumvented...

 LordofHats wrote:
No you've insinuated a difference where one doesn't really exist.

No. I have flat out stated the difference.
Under investigation - a preliminary step in any criminal investigation that involves checking alibis of people, etc., to rule them out as a suspect
Suspect - where there is sufficient evidence to believe that the person in question may have committed the crime. Investigation places this individual as a primary focus.

There is a clear difference.

 LordofHats wrote:
People taking a drone that wakes a wide area picture and then zooms in on a crime and making wild rants about how the government is going to start scanning everyone's faces and putting them in a facial recognition database, is a pretty irrational jump in logic. Likewise, people make the irrational logical jump that if the government has your DNA, they'll do something with it. Like what? CODIS has been around for over a decade and thus far there's never been a major scandal with its use and it contains murders, rapists, and other people no one gives a damn about.

What happens to often in the US is that the government does something and people lose their minds talking about all the things that might happen instead of what is happening. Sometimes its mild and understandable, other times is completely flying rodent gak insane.

I don't recall making any statement about drones. So you either have me confused with another poster, or you're trying to build another strawman.
But if you want to keep trying insisting that basing my skepticism of the US government on concrete examples is an "irrational jump in logic" then you are willfully misconstruing what is rational and irrational (which, again, we have covered before)

 LordofHats wrote:
You base your concerns on government abuse of power. What abuse? What do you think is going happen? They'll keep your DNA and never let it go? To what end? That's not a question about whether its moral or legal for them to keep it, merely a question of what you think they'll do with it?

At this point I really feel that we are going around in circles because yet again you are going over old ground. I would respectfully request that you read what I have posted prior. Your questions are all answered there. I do not see the necessity in having to repeat myself yet again.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah I just said that. They can suspect you all day long and with no evidence to put grounds on that suspicion, they can't go to court and get anything (unless the Judge is crazy, which is a legitimate concern cause we have a lot of crazy judges and getting rid of them is a complete pain in the ass).

Suspicion and being labeled a suspect requires reasonable grounds. We have already gone over this.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's only coercive (again) if they weren't already looking at you. All it is is getting upset at the word used, not what the police are actually doing, and in the US when I look up these things the police don't use the word. They simply say they'll check up on people who refuse, which sounds a little nicer, but is frankly the exact same thing.

So again. People get butt hurt over that word.

It is coercive regardless of the external situation. In the OP 500 people were being coerced into giving DNA on the basis of being in the same building as the crime with nothing further to tie them to the crime scene.
Most lay people will know that police will always investigate a crime to rule people out. Once the suspect label is used then the social stigma attaches.

Again, we have gone over this numerous times.

 LordofHats wrote:
Being suspect != accused in court in any US jurisdictions. This logic is completely circular. The police need a suspect before they can go to court and argue probable cause. If they can't have a suspect without probable cause they'd never solve any crime anywhere.

You are conflating reasonable cause with evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no circular logic. Reasonable suspicion does not equal proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Were that the case the legal landscape for criminal trials would be substantially different.

 LordofHats wrote:
It was extolling cost effectiveness, which has no connection to legality, morality, or any other ity about the valid use of government power. Lots of things that are cost effective are illegal and should be (killing all our convicts for example, would be far more cost effective than housing them for 30 year runs on their private stash, but that seems like a overreaction... Like 30 year sentences for private stashes).

So you willfully ignored a huge variety of related factors, and instead accused someone else who took account of more of them of irrationality?

 LordofHats wrote:
My typical assumption in politics is that the side with the least irrational argument wins (cause there are no rational arguments in politics ). You want to know why security has been winning the last 14 years? Exposing noble ideals about rights and liberty make for good sound bites, but they don't make anyone feel safer. When you move away from lofty ideals and go to Irrationally jumping to conclusions, well, those people who want to feel safer just see crazy.

Again, providing concrete examples of abuses of government power showing why there may be a healthy skepticism of government is not irrational. This is not a new discussion point and has been covered on numerous occasions.
If you want to complain about irrationality though I would suggest you look closer to home. Especially as you were the one espousing that we fight corruption, then stick our heads in the sand. Then that you want to do away with the CIA/PRISM because of their abuses of power, yet want to hand more power to the government itself even after the wake of PRISM.

 LordofHats wrote:
If people want liberty to win, they need more perspective than I'm seeing in this thread.

Asking for your rights to be respected, and not being coerced into signing them away should not require more perspective. Otherwise they are not rights. They are permissions. A substantial difference.

 whembly wrote:
Can we trust our government with that sort of thing?

My position has always been that you can never trust government, making the question completely frivilous. It's more productive to find ways to reduce abuse and manage corruption than to cling to an arbitrary standard of 'trust' that is solely based on the fears and insecurities of the person asking that question.

But maybe we don't want another five pages of that XD I'd suspect everyone is talked out on that subject for at least a month

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Can we trust our government with that sort of thing?

My position has always been that you can never trust government, making the question completely frivilous. It's more productive to find ways to reduce abuse and manage corruption than to cling to an arbitrary standard of 'trust' that is solely based on the fears and insecurities of the person asking that question.

But maybe we don't want another five pages of that XD I'd suspect everyone is talked out on that subject for at least a month

Wait... the dichotomy between "My position has always been that you can never trust government, making the question completely frivilous" is making my head hurt.

Reduce abuse and managing corruption should always be the goal... and that's because we will always have trust issues with the government.

Otherwise, if we truly trusted our government, then there's no need to reduce abuse and corruption.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
They are permissions.

Rights are not granted to us by God, nature, or other assorted notions residing purely in the realm of idealism. Rights are what a society has determined them to be (hence why we need to clarify them on paper).

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

By "ask for this stuff anymore" so you mean obtain a warrant? Because that is a huge intrusion into numerous legal rights. As for savings "tax dollar" how do you think that the DNA will be stored, cataloged, analysed etc. Hiring qualified staff, maintaining facilities, etc. is not cheap

You may not be the only one. But I would hope that you are in a distinct minority.

 whembly wrote:

Otherwise, if we truly trusted our government, then there's no need to reduce abuse and corruption.

And now you know why I find it annoying to constantly see that question being thrown up

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what I said and it spawned like 5 pages of me and Dreadclaw talking past each other

When you keep conflating terms and I have to keep restating my points to try and make sure that we're on the same page that is an unfortunate consequence

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what I said and it spawned like 5 pages of me and Dreadclaw talking past each other

When you keep conflating terms and I have to keep restating my points to try and make sure that we're on the same page that is an unfortunate consequence

Such are the hazards of internet discussions

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Otherwise, if we truly trusted our government, then there's no need to reduce abuse and corruption.

And now you know why I find it annoying to constantly see that question being thrown up

Yup.

I really think many of our debates here boils down to semantics.

 LordofHats wrote:
Rights are not granted to us by God, nature, or other assorted notions residing purely in the realm of idealism. Rights are what a society has determined them to be (hence why we need to clarify them on paper).

Here is the text of the 4th Amendment:

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

Where exactly does it says it may only be exercised with permission? I eagerly await your reply


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
My position has always been that you can never trust government, making the question completely frivilous. It's more productive to find ways to reduce abuse and manage corruption than to cling to an arbitrary standard of 'trust' that is solely based on the fears and insecurities of the person asking that question.

But maybe we don't want another five pages of that XD I'd suspect everyone is talked out on that subject for at least a month

And yet when people object to handing the government huge amounts of power you just say that they can be trusted with it. If not we can fight them. Or stick our heads in the sand.

Do you know how you help reduce corruption? By respecting people's rights. Using coercion to sign away you rights is a form of corruption.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Where exactly does it says it may only be exercised with permission?

That's not the point. A right exists because at some point in time society decided they wanted it to be that way. Rights are just one big list of allowances, permissions, protections, and other assorted things written out because that's how people want them to be. They're not divine, or natural, they're artifical constructs created by us for our needs. As such we can change what our rights are if it suits us (we've done it a lot the last 200 years).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And yet when people object to handing the government huge amounts of power you just say that they can be trusted with it.

Never said that. You just keep saying I said that.

Do you know how you help reduce corruption?

By accepting it as an inevitability and planning for it rather than clinging to pointing it out over and over unproductively

Using coercion to sign away you rights is a form of corruption.

Telling someone they'll be investigated if they don't volunteer evidence is at best fighting dirty, and at worst distasteful, but given that the statement in itself leads to nothing damaging in itself no. Even if we accept your fradulent view of suspect as a word it doesn't matter. The police can easily just not say that and they're going to do it anyway because nothing in the law says they can't and it's prudent for them to do it.

You're arguing over a word, not the law (apparently we're not talked out for a month XD)

 LordofHats wrote:
That's not the point. A right exists because at some point in time society decided they wanted it to be that way. Rights are just one big list of allowances, permissions, protections, and other assorted things written out because that's how people want them to be. They're not divine, or natural, they're artifical constructs created by us for our needs. As such we can change what our rights are if it suits us (we've done it a lot the last 200 years).

Remember when you said that we were talking past each other? This is a prime example of that.
And I'm still waiting for you to show me what part of the 4th requires permission to use.

 LordofHats wrote:
Never said that. You just keep saying I said that.

Really? No matter how much evidence has been provided you keep saying that suspicion of the government is "irrational" or "paranoid"

 LordofHats wrote:
By accepting it as an inevitability and planning for it rather than clinging to pointing it out over and over unproductively

So if you know and accept that it will be inevitable why not take steps to prevent it? That is much more productive, and easier, than waiting for it to happen. Otherwise you're trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has gone.

 LordofHats wrote:
Telling someone they'll be investigated if they don't volunteer evidence is at best fighting dirty, and at worst distasteful, but given that the statement in itself leads to nothing damaging in itself no. Even if we accept your fradulent view of suspect as a word it doesn't matter. The police can easily just not say that and they're going to do it anyway because nothing in the law says they can't and it's prudent for them to do it.

We seem to be having the same conversation yet again because you are conflating 'investigation' with 'suspect'. At this point I am not sure how I can explain the differences any clearer than I already have.
You're going to have to state in absolute terms what is supposedly "fraudulent" about my use of the word suspect.

 LordofHats wrote:
You're arguing over a word, not the law (apparently we're not talked out for a month XD)

I keep arguing over words because you keep conflating them. I have been arguing the law also - I stated what exactly the difference was between reasonable grounds for suspicion, and beyond a reasonable doubt. You have insisted on playing semantics over 'suspect' and 'investigation' despite the clear differences being pointed out.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And I'm still waiting for you to show me what part of the 4th requires permission to use.

I was never talking about the fourth amendment, just the idea that rights are anything other than what they are. What we make them. Ostensibly, anyone with a right can give it up at any time. They just can't be forced to, but 'forced' is a tricky word with an inevitable gray area where someone can force you without literally forcing you.

Really? No matter how much evidence has been provided you keep saying that suspicion of the government is "irrational" or "paranoid"

Yeah, because most of it is based in fantasy of things that haven't or aren't happening, which is irrational while falsely justifying that irrationality using things that actually do happen, most of which can be blamed on incompetence rather than an ardent desire to turn us all into slaves. The current thing going on with Bundy and BLM (in another thread) is a rather amazing example of this.

Never let truth stand in the way of hysteria

if you know and accept that it will be inevitable why not take steps to prevent it?

The whole point of being inevitable is that it can't be prevented. It's like cancer. You can't cure it only treat it.

You're going to have to state in absolute terms what is supposedly "fraudulent" about my use of the word suspect.

I decided that was wasting time a page ago and it was more useful to point out why it doesn't matter (not much luck there). The police can say "you can say no if you want, no harm no foul" but that would be a damned lie. It's prudent to check on those who say no because those who said yes probably didn't do whatever the cops are trying to figure out. I.E. even if they don't say "you will be a suspect" they'll still treat you as one. They can say it nicely, or honestly, either way the outcome is the same because nothing says they can't do it (and unless someone says they can't, they'll go ahead and do it like any good rules lawyer).

You have insisted on playing semantics over 'suspect' and 'investigation' despite the clear differences being pointed out.

I think we're both playing that game except neither of us agree on the line of scrimage

 LordofHats wrote:
I was never talking about the fourth amendment, just the idea that rights are anything other than what they are. What we make them. Ostensibly, anyone with a right can give it up at any time. They just can't be forced to, but 'forced' is a tricky word with an inevitable gray area where someone can force you without literally forcing you.

You were never talking about the Fourth? Even when we discussed reasonable cause for suspicion, which is a core of that Amendment? The whole thread has been about unreasonable searches, it has always been about the Fourth.
We've discussed volunteering. We've discussed coercion. Until now you have had no objection to me claiming that people were being forced to provide DNA under punishment of being called a suspect in a child rape case. This is old ground. The only difference is now you're ascribing to the dogma school of debating wherein we spend the rest of the discussion passing definitions back and forth.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah, because most of it is based in fantasy of things that haven't or aren't happening, which is irrational while falsely justifying that irrationality using things that actually do happen, most of which can be blamed on incompetence rather than an ardent desire to turn us all into slaves. The current thing going on with Bundy and BLM (in another thread) is a rather amazing example of this.

Never let truth stand in the way of hysteria

Are you actually serious? At this stage I honestly have to ask.
"[M]ost of it is based in fantasy"? Really? PRISM is not fantasy. There is plenty of evidence to show that it is real, including admissions that it exists. The CIA's numerous infractions, which you yourself brought to the table, are also a matter of public record.
If you think that setting up a domestic program to spy on everyone, collect meta data, and build profiles of people is just incompetence rather than an actual deliberate policy then there is nothing more to say as you continue to persist in perverting the ordinary and natural meanings of words past any reasonable definition.

 LordofHats wrote:
The whole point of being inevitable is that it can't be prevented. It's like cancer. You can't cure it only treat it.

That is not an apt analogy when we're discussing conscious human behavior. Cancer has no motivation, or any conscious thought or desire. Limits can, are, and will be placed upon government powers.

 LordofHats wrote:
I decided that was wasting time a page ago and it was more useful to point out why it doesn't matter (not much luck there). The police can say "you can say no if you want, no harm no foul" but that would be a damned lie. It's prudent to check on those who say no because those who said yes probably didn't do whatever the cops are trying to figure out. I.E. even if they don't say "you will be a suspect" they'll still treat you as one. They can say it nicely, or honestly, either way the outcome is the same because nothing says they can't do it (and unless someone says they can't, they'll go ahead and do it like any good rules lawyer).

That is not fraudulent. That is not even close. You again confused what is meant by investigation, and what is meant by suspect. We've been over this on numerous times. I am not going over this again. Because you have erred does not mean that I have acted in bad faith. I already pointed out that the argument you were attributing to me was a strawman. This is old ground.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think we're both playing that game except neither of us agree on the line of scrimage

I've pointed out the differences. I've given the definitions numerous times. I keep having to clear up whatever misconceptions you have, and yet they persist. I'm standing on the line of scrimmage, you're in formation at the back of the field expecting a punt return.

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

Would you mind government owned cameras in your house? Genuine question.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You were never talking about the Fourth?

Not with that comment no. I was talking about the nature of rights (we had another thread about it recently).

Until now you have had no objection to me claiming that people were being forced to provide DNA under punishment of being called a suspect in a child rape case

I've spent a rather large number of words talking about irrational jumping to conclusions, idiocy of the masses, lacked perspective, and how it doesn't even matter from an investigative stand point just a PR standpoint. If you hadn't noticed you're really not reading anything I say XD

If you think that setting up a domestic program to spy on everyone, collect meta data, and build profiles of people is just incompetence rather than an actual deliberate policy then there is nothing more to say as you continue to persist in perverting the ordinary and natural meanings of words past any reasonable definition.

But that's not what I mean. I mean the people who take PRISM* and then talk about how the government is going to arrest all the malcontents, start purging the undesirables, monitor their every move like the NSA cares about someone's daily routine, and other assorted Orwellian fictions contrived from one that actually happened. Not in this thread really, in general. As I've stated numerous times, the thing that makes PRISM even further evidence of NSA incompetence is that it doesn't even seem to have had a clear end goal in mind. It's mass spying seemingly for no reason other than they thought they could.

*Having looked it up, the original proposal for PRISM had maybe a 50% chance of being legal, but the way the NSA actually started using it was very illegal, and I can only assume some idiots sheltered behind the free badge of secrecy though they could get away with it. So yeah, incompetence. It's probably caused more damage to people in the US over the last 50 years than any form of malice simply by virtue of being far more common.

Cancer has no motivation, or any conscious thought or desire.

You'd be surprised how well that matches up with social systems. The typical government agency is often too large and bloated to really have any 'thought' about what it's doing on a daily basis (I would have gone with pointing out cancer is always bad, while government is most of the time okay).

You again confused what is meant by investigation, and what is meant by suspect. We've been over this on numerous times.

We've both been over it numerous times. You can play semantics pretending that words are written in stone while I play semantics pointing out words are fluid and we both end up in the same place we were when we started (regardless of the fact that 'suspect' as a word is fluid legally as it has no meaning to the court, only the police and the standard for reasonable grounds is whatever the police decided it was).

 LordofHats wrote:
I've spent a rather large number of words talking about irrational jumping to conclusions, idiocy of the masses, lacked perspective, and how it doesn't even matter from an investigative stand point just a PR standpoint. If you hadn't noticed you're really not reading anything I say XD

I had noticed. In fact I have rebutted your position several times. Your response has been to repeat the same tired old arguments and force me to repeat myself

 LordofHats wrote:
But that's not what I mean. I mean the people who take PRISM* and then talk about how the government is going to arrest all the malcontents, start purging the undesirables, monitor their every move like the NSA cares about someone's daily routine, and other assorted Orwellian fictions contrived from one that actually happened. Not in this thread really, in general. As I've stated numerous times, the thing that makes PRISM even further evidence of NSA incompetence is that it doesn't even seem to have had a clear end goal in mind. It's mass spying seemingly for no reason other than they thought they could.

*Having looked it up, the original proposal for PRISM had maybe a 50% chance of being legal, but the way the NSA actually started using it was very illegal, and I can only assume some idiots sheltered behind the free badge of secrecy though they could get away with it. So yeah, incompetence. It's probably caused more damage to people in the US over the last 50 years than any form of malice simply by virtue of being far more common.

You said that suspicion of government programs was "irrational", "paranoid", and "fantasy". Yet I have given clear examples, one of which you are actually discussing. This is another prime example of what I mean by your consistent inconsistency. I feel like I'm being trolled. I set out actual examples. You agree with them. Then you argue against them.

 LordofHats wrote:
You'd be surprised how well that matches up with social systems. The typical government agency is often too large and bloated to really have any 'thought' about what it's doing on a daily basis (I would have gone with pointing out cancer is always bad, while government is most of the time okay).

I would be surprised. Because it doesn't.

 LordofHats wrote:
We've both been over it numerous times. You can play semantics pretending that words are written in stone while I play semantics pointing out words are fluid and we both end up in the same place we were when we started (regardless of the fact that 'suspect' as a word is fluid legally as it has no meaning to the court, only the police and the standard for reasonable grounds is whatever the police decided it was).

I have given repeated, constant, widely accepted definitions based on the natural meanings of the word so that we could be clear on what we are talking about. That is not semantics. That is ensuring that you understand what I am saying so that you can engage with me. You've still managed to conflate the meanings and are now claiming things are fluid when they are not.
Reasonable grounds must be established based on guidelines, jurisprudence, law, and prior decisions. It is not just pulled from a hat.


If your next reply is covering the same tired old ground, more strawmen, a contradiction, or more word play, then please do not expect a response.

Well, to go back to the actual case, one student has refused to give a test.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/french-school-rape-dna-testing

Apparently there are also another nine people who left the school in the past six months, and are not currently available for testing.

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=968771

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You said that suspicion of government programs was "irrational", "paranoid", and "fantasy".

No I've said it's not an argument. It's either nonsense or statements of the obvious, neither of which are useful, both are frivolous and pointless in any discussion. It's a sophism. A statement masquerading as reason that says more about who says it than anything else. This was pretty much my first post. You can say inconsistency till your hoarse, but it's not a complicated position, just an odd one.

I would be surprised. Because it doesn't.

So you propose that the entire government is a single hivemind with only one will? I think you'll be disappointing to find that won't hold up for long as a theory.

I have given repeated, constant, widely accepted definitions based on the natural meanings of the word so that we could be clear on what we are talking about.

We both have given meanings (there is no such thing as 'natural meaning'). I'm not talking about the word as it exists in the public mind, only how it exists in law, and in law its a very vague word.

Reasonable grounds must be established based on guidelines, jurisprudence, law, and prior decisions. It is not just pulled from a hat.

Seeing as the court makes no distinction on suspects, as deciding suspects is an executive decision, there are no laws or jurisprudence governing what a suspect is and guidelines will vary by jurisdiction. They are in fact, pulled out of a hat. As I keep saying, even setting aside the meaning of the word, the police are going to go ahead and investigate anyway because nothing says they can't. There's no rule that tells them they can only investigate suspects.

So accept it or don't, your not arguing law or rights. You're just complaining about word choice. Practically that word makes no difference to how the police will behave.

If your next reply is covering the same tired old ground, more strawmen, a contradiction, or more word play, then please do not expect a response.

I was ready to be done yesterday XD

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

Would you mind government owned cameras in your house? Genuine question.

What link are you seeing between a DNA database and video surveillance?

 LordofHats wrote:
No I've said it's not an argument. It's either nonsense or statements of the obvious, neither of which are useful, both are frivolous and pointless in any discussion. It's a sophism. A statement masquerading as reason that says more about who says it than anything else. This was pretty much my first post. You can say inconsistency till your hoarse, but it's not a complicated position, just an odd one.

So taking concrete examples (which you have agreed with), and making an informed opinion is "nonsense" now?

 LordofHats wrote:
So you propose that the entire government is a single hivemind with only one will? I think you'll be disappointing to find that won't hold up for long as a theory.

Strawman.

 LordofHats wrote:
We both have given meanings (there is no such thing as 'natural meaning'). I'm not talking about the word as it exists in the public mind, only how it exists in law, and in law its a very vague word.

Absolutely incorrect on all counts.

 LordofHats wrote:
Seeing as the court makes no distinction on suspects, as deciding suspects is an executive decision, there are no laws or jurisprudence governing what a suspect is and guidelines will vary by jurisdiction. They are in fact, pulled out of a hat. As I keep saying, even setting aside the meaning of the word, the police are going to go ahead and investigate anyway because nothing says they can't. There's no rule that tells them they can only investigate suspects.

So accept it or don't, your not arguing law or rights. You're just complaining about word choice. Practically that word makes no difference to how the police will behave.

Except that when it comes to court the person is no longer the suspect. (S)he is now the accused. It is a very simple concept that goes like this:
under investigation -> (if enough evidence) suspect ->charges filed -> accused
The differences have, again, already been covered. You may wish to read my previous replies which explained the actual differences rather than your misconceptions.

 LordofHats wrote:
I was ready to be done yesterday XD

And yet here you are

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So taking concrete examples (which you have agreed with), and making an informed opinion is "nonsense" now?

It is when instead of dealing with real problems its focused on imaginary ones and slippery slopes or is simply used in place of "shut up" all of which are fallicious. Calling those opinions 'informed' is just dressing up a pig and calling it a apple pie.

Except that when it comes to court the person is no longer the suspect. (S)he is now the accused.

I know. That's my point and it is simple. Who to investigate is a police decision that doesn't even reach the court until they want a warrant or to bring charges at which point the criteria are probable cause and grand jurys. The police decide who is suspect according to their own criteria, usually reasonable person standard, and that usually turns out to be doublespeak for 'investigating officer/detective thinks so' given that reasonable person is a very loose standard.

And yet here you are

My life is super boring

 LordofHats wrote:

Except that when it comes to court the person is no longer the suspect. (S)he is now the accused.

I know. That's my point and it is simple. Who to investigate is a police decision that doesn't even reach the court until they want a warrant or to bring charges at which point the criteria are probable cause and grand jurys. The police decide who is suspect according to their own criteria, usually reasonable person standard, and that usually turns out to be doublespeak for 'investigating officer/detective thinks so' given that reasonable person is a very loose standard.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


Except that when it comes to court the person is no longer the suspect. (S)he is now the accused. It is a very simple concept that goes like this:
under investigation -> (if enough evidence) suspect ->charges filed -> accused
The differences have, again, already been covered. You may wish to read my previous replies which explained the actual differences rather than your misconceptions.

You can be a suspect without even knowing it.

If you are suspected of a crime it doesn't mean you will be charged nor does it mean you will even have to speak to the law.

Weight of evidence against a suspect usually means a charge is laid.

In the UK at least the common term used for those charged with a crime and are in court is defendant - a much better term than 'the accused'.

Even if you do not know you are a suspect/subject of an investigation because you have not been charged or otherwise notified, the cops here in the US must obtain the proper warrants to conduct surveillance/collect data/evidence. Again, the 'least intrusive means' test will have to be met, and there must be enough info for the judge to believe signing the warrant(s) is the right thing to do.

 CptJake wrote:
Even if you do not know you are a suspect/subject of an investigation because you have not been charged or otherwise notified, the cops here in the US must obtain the proper warrants to conduct surveillance/collect data/evidence. Again, the 'least intrusive means' test will have to be met, and there must be enough info for the judge to believe signing the warrant(s) is the right thing to do.

Oh, I know, was assuming that in my post.

 LordofHats wrote:
It is when instead of dealing with real problems its focused on imaginary ones and slippery slopes or is simply used in place of "shut up" all of which are fallicious. Calling those opinions 'informed' is just dressing up a pig and calling it a apple pie.

Because using past evidence of how personal rights were wholesale infringed, and the lack of curtailing government powers, is no good predictor

 LordofHats wrote:
I know. That's my point and it is simple. Who to investigate is a police decision that doesn't even reach the court until they want a warrant or to bring charges at which point the criteria are probable cause and grand jurys. The police decide who is suspect according to their own criteria, usually reasonable person standard, and that usually turns out to be doublespeak for 'investigating officer/detective thinks so' given that reasonable person is a very loose standard.

So there is in fact criteria for determining whether to treat someone as a suspect. Good. Because a short time ago you were trying to argue the opposite.
And reasonable standard is more than just the officer thinks so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
You can be a suspect without even knowing it.

If you are suspected of a crime it doesn't mean you will be charged nor does it mean you will even have to speak to the law.

Weight of evidence against a suspect usually means a charge is laid.

In the UK at least the common term used for those charged with a crime and are in court is defendant - a much better term than 'the accused'.

Did you have a point, other than stating the obvious?

So there is in fact criteria for determining whether to treat someone as a suspect. Good. Because a short time ago you were trying to argue the opposite.

The only way to think that is to really fail to read anything I've said (again).

And reasonable standard is more than just the officer thinks so.

In theory, but not in practice (the two hardly ever match up). For things like a stop and frisk (not the NYC policy just general stop and frisks by the typical beat cop) the officer might be called upon to support his reasonable suspicion and fail or succeed, but in a broader sense reasonable person in practice is just double speak for "I'm reasonable and I think he did it." In most cases, the police never get called on to justify their suspicions, often because those suspicions are so fleeting and they never make it to a court.

Did you have a point, other than stating the obvious?

You realize I've been asking this question the entire thread

 insaniak wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

Would you mind government owned cameras in your house? Genuine question.

What link are you seeing between a DNA database and video surveillance?

Police efficiency, which is the point of a DNA databank.

Wanting better efficency in one area doesn't automatically lead to wanting it in another (ignoring the such massive survellience is so far from efficient it's hilarious to see the comparison even made).

 LordofHats wrote:
(ignoring the such massive survellience is so far from efficient it's hilarious to see the comparison even made).

Technology advances. Also I'm not talking about active monitoring, just a video law enforcement could bring up to maybe get a description or match events. It would be like current home security systems.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Technology advances. Also I'm not talking about active monitoring, just a video law enforcement could bring up to maybe get a description or match events.

Public streets are one thing. Homes are entirely different. Even I can get behind that idea

It would be like current home security systems.

You mean the ones that don't work and actually take longer to call the cops than just dialing 911

imo the best home secuirty system is a sign that says you have one

imo the best home secuirty system is a brace of full auto wiener dogs

Corrected your typo.

Those work too. Especially when combined with flaming bags of poop thrown at the intruder from a complicated pully system rigged to the doors and windows.

 Frazzled wrote:

imo the best home secuirty system is a brace of full auto wiener dogs

Corrected your typo.

Dogs are, in fact, one of the best security measures around. Even small dogs, simply because they make so much noise.

And as we all know, (many) wiener dogs have a bark so shrill it will stop a riot. Even worse a yodeling wiener dog is so strange it will even stop Bare Chested Putin.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So there is in fact criteria for determining whether to treat someone as a suspect.[...]
And reasonable standard is more than just the officer thinks so.

I feel that at this point, definitions are in order.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21 wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

So, basically, 'what the officer thinks so', put in a propositionnal statement containing logical inferences, at least on the surface.

It should be mentionned, in relation to the OP, that perquisition mandates does not exists under French penal procedural laws, and that a mandated officer of the law, be it the instruction judge or a cop, has the immediate obligation to obtain whatever material constitute a proof of criminal guilt, as long as it does not violate residence protection laws.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only way to think that is to really fail to read anything I've said (again).

So when you said that there was n real difference between being a suspect and being investigated and that it was only semantics, you were in fact agreeing with me when I said that they were different

 LordofHats wrote:
In theory, but not in practice (the two hardly ever match up). For things like a stop and frisk (not the NYC policy just general stop and frisks by the typical beat cop) the officer might be called upon to support his reasonable suspicion and fail or succeed, but in a broader sense reasonable person in practice is just double speak for "I'm reasonable and I think he did it." In most cases, the police never get called on to justify their suspicions, often because those suspicions are so fleeting and they never make it to a court.

Stop and Frisk. You mean that practice that the courts felt was not compatible with the 4th Amendment? Of all the things to bring in to the discussion concerning undermining civil liberties this may not have been the most sensible.
The police need reasonable suspicion, otherwise they're screwed if the detained person insists on a writ of habeas corpus.

 LordofHats wrote:
You realize I've been asking this question the entire thread

Well in case you missed in while you were busy contradicting yourself let me make it clear - no one should be coerced into providing DNA unless a under a Court order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
And as we all know, (many) wiener dogs have a bark so shrill it will stop a riot. Even worse a yodeling wiener dog is so strange it will even stop Bare Chested Putin.

We have Aussies. Herding dogs always let you know when someone is disturbing the homestead. They've already scared off one would be burglar


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21 wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

So, basically, 'what the officer thinks so', put in a propositionnal statement containing logical inferences, at least on the surface.

Incorrect. It is not just any suspicion. It must be a reasonable suspicion as your quote from Terry v Ohio shows, and what I have been trying to say on numerous occasions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Incorrect. It is not just any suspicion. It must be a reasonable suspicion as your quote from Terry v Ohio shows, and what I have been trying to say on numerous occasions.

While you are correct that there is indeed a standard, that standard itselft is pretty damn close to the ineffable.

R v Camplin, A.C. 705 (1978 wrote:[a reasonable man] "means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today”

Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 WLR 1119 (1954) wrote:''where reasonable man is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed.''

The concept of 'reasonable' in common law is an enabler. It it useful in that it allows Law to function as a system despite refusing to define its standards.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
And as we all know, (many) wiener dogs have a bark so shrill it will stop a riot. Even worse a yodeling wiener dog is so strange it will even stop Bare Chested Putin.

We have Aussies. Herding dogs always let you know when someone is disturbing the homestead. They've already scared off one would be burglar

You keep Aussies to do your herding? I am pleased to know if I ever need a job in the US I can get one with free board, a kennel and free flees. I don't know about barking well but I am sure I could manage a fear tinged yodel. If I am expected to guard your home I do expect a 20 round magazine attached to my AR-15 (lol) assault weapon.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So when you said that there was n real difference between being a suspect and being investigated and that it was only semantics, you were in fact agreeing with me when I said that they were different

That's what happens in semantics. You can point out that there is a strict definition on paper, while I can point it the fluid use in practice, and we both come out being right.

Stop and Frisk. You mean that practice that the courts felt was not compatible with the 4th Amendment?

Stop and frisk as a practice has been around for a very long time, but its messy because reasonable suspicion (Kovnik describes it better) is vague on purpose. If say, a cop saw someone with a fire arm under the jacket in a state that doesn't allow any conceal carry, stopped and frisked them, in court they'd be required to justify their action.

The NYC policy expanded the practice so broadly that it meant in law the cops could just stop you cause he noticed your nice shoes and subject you to a frisk and never needed to justify the action (which is why it was so heavily unconstitutional).

The police need reasonable suspicion, otherwise they're screwed if the detained person insists on a writ of habeas corpus.

Exactly. But in say, a murder case, where the police never used reasonable suspicion to justify any police action, they're never called on to justify themselves by the reasonable person standard. In effect they treat it very liberally.

Well in case you missed in while you were busy contradicting yourself let me make it clear - no one should be coerced into providing DNA unless a under a Court order.

They did have a court order XD (in the French case). From a magistrate who's job it was to issue such orders. The police in the US usually okay their DNA sweeps with a judge before they launch them as a precaution (I don't think the courts here issue warrants for that kind of thing).

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Police efficiency, which is the point of a DNA databank.

I suspect we have different interpretations of the word 'efficiency'...

In-home monitoring is where you start running into actual privacy issues, though. It's a completely different kettle of fish to maintaining a database of DNA, which is ultimately not really any different to them keeping a database of fingerprints or licence plates.

Bullockist wrote:
You keep Aussies to do your herding? I am pleased to know if I ever need a job in the US I can get one with free board, a kennel and free flees. I don't know about barking well but I am sure I could manage a fear tinged yodel. If I am expected to guard your home I do expect a 20 round magazine attached to my AR-15 (lol) assault weapon.

This type of Aussie



Although ours have some snow dog in the mix too

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
While you are correct that there is indeed a standard, that standard itselft is pretty damn close to the ineffable.

R v Camplin, A.C. 705 (1978 wrote:[a reasonable man] "means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today”

Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 WLR 1119 (1954) wrote:''where reasonable man is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed.''

The concept of 'reasonable' in common law is an enabler. It it useful in that it allows Law to function as a system despite refusing to define its standards.

And the police officer still has to justify his reasons for treating someone as a suspect. If the police officer labels Person A a suspect just because he wears a 'One Direction' t-shirt that is not reasonable. If the police officer labels Person A a suspect because eye witnesses say that the perpetrator was wearing a 'One Direction' t-shirt and Person A has a shaky alibi then that is reasonable.

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what happens in semantics. You can point out that there is a strict definition on paper, while I can point it the fluid use in practice, and we both come out being right.

Except when it is shown that your "fluid" definition is also incorrect

 LordofHats wrote:
Stop and frisk as a practice has been around for a very long time, but its messy because reasonable suspicion (Kovnik describes it better) is vague on purpose. If say, a cop saw someone with a fire arm under the jacket in a state that doesn't allow any conceal carry, stopped and frisked them, in court they'd be required to justify their action.

You specifically mentioned NYC. Do not shift the goalposts.
If a cop say someone with a firearm that was concealed in a state that does not allow concealed carry that is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is asking 500 people for DNA because they happened to be in the same building as a crime.

 LordofHats wrote:
The NYC policy expanded the practice so broadly that it meant in law the cops could just stop you cause he noticed your nice shoes and subject you to a frisk and never needed to justify the action (which is why it was so heavily unconstitutional).

If I recall most of the complaints against NYPD were the fact that it targeted minorities based on skin color, not fashion.

 LordofHats wrote:
Exactly. But in say, a murder case, where the police never used reasonable suspicion to justify any police action, they're never called on to justify themselves by the reasonable person standard. In effect they treat it very liberally.

So the police need reasonable suspicion to treat someone as a suspect. On that we appear to agree at last. But in your example this never exists. So you are in effect trying to sidestep the reasonable suspicion requirement in an incomplete hypothetical scenario.

 LordofHats wrote:
They did have a court order XD (in the French case). From a magistrate who's job it was to issue such orders. The police in the US usually okay their DNA sweeps with a judge before they launch them as a precaution (I don't think the courts here issue warrants for that kind of thing).

Congratulations, we're back at the point where I have to remind you that, per the OP, we are not simply discussing France. In fact we have not been discussing France for quite some time in case it had escaped your attention.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You specifically mentioned NYC. Do not shift the goalposts.

I specifically mentioned not NYC. YOu're moving the goal posts not me. The stop and frisk is as old as policing itself. I said not to specifically avoid having to deal with the NYC policy that broadened the use of the practice so widely it was being used in contravention of law.

If I recall most of the complaints against NYPD were the fact that it targeted minorities based on skin color, not fashion.

That's what got people riled up, but it was unconsititutional before that. EDIT: It was also at the same time the police were being graded by 'quotas' and they'd use the stop and frisk powers granted to them to meet those quotas and just arrest people for the silliest things or even for no reason at all.

So the police need reasonable suspicion to treat someone as a suspect. On that we appear to agree at last. But in your example this never exists. So you are in effect trying to sidestep the reasonable suspicion requirement in an incomplete hypothetical scenario.

It's not hypothetical. It happens daily (even hourly). It's how the law is practiced rather than how it is written.

Congratulations, we're back at the point where I have to remind you that, per the OP, we are not simply discussing France. In fact we have not been discussing France for quite some time in case it had escaped your attention.

You're the one complaining about how they need a warrant, when the example given in the OP did have the equivalent and when I point out that while judges don't usually issue warrants in the US for volunteer sweeps, they usually give police the nod that they're not violating any laws.

At this point you're just being daft.

 LordofHats wrote:
I specifically mentioned not NYC. YOu're moving the goal posts not me. The stop and frisk is as old as policing itself. I said not to specifically avoid having to deal with the NYC policy that broadened the use of the practice so widely it was being used in contravention of law.

You are correct about mentioning NYC, my apologies
And that is a prime example of the abuse or corruption of power as it was being carried out without reasonable suspicion

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what got people riled up, but it was unconsititutional before that. EDIT: It was also at the same time the police were being graded by 'quotas' and they'd use the stop and frisk powers granted to them to meet those quotas and just arrest people for the silliest things or even for no reason at all.

Quotas in certain jobs are just a fantastically stupid idea. And police work is one of those jobs.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's not hypothetical. It happens daily (even hourly). It's how the law is practiced rather than how it is written.

But your scenario is incomplete. The police still require evidence to take action. In your murder case they simply cannot kick in the door of someone living 5 blocks away and raid the house as part of the investigation if there is no evidence linking the person to the crime.
Your scenario raises more questions than answers because it is incomplete and there are too many variables to make it useful.

 LordofHats wrote:
You're the one complaining about how they need a warrant, when the example given in the OP did have the equivalent and when I point out that while judges don't usually issue warrants in the US for volunteer sweeps, they usually give police the nod that they're not violating any laws.

At this point you're just being daft.

No. I am the one saying that people should not be coerced into signing their rights away. I am the one saying that the police should have done due diligence in their investigation, used reasonable suspicion to determine a suspect, and proceed along that line of inquiry, and obtained a warrant for the DNA of their suspect. Not that they should ask for 500-volunteers-or-be-a-child-rape-suspect.
That is what I have been saying from the very start - that the police should respect the rights of private citizens and not attempt to strong arm them.

Quotas in certain jobs are just a fantastically stupid idea. And police work is one of those jobs.

I've long stood by my position that NYPD is one of the worst managed police departments in the world, if not the worst (LAPD seems to be in a constant race to win the Suckist Cops Award).

But your scenario is incomplete. The police still require evidence to take action. In your murder case they simply cannot kick in the door of someone living 5 blocks away and raid the house as part of the investigation if there is no evidence linking the person to the crime.
Your scenario raises more questions than answers because it is incomplete and there are too many variables to make it useful.

Though our current practice of reasonable person results in a fair amount of tunnel visioning in investigations, I'm not saying the cops go straight from "I think he did it" to arresting and taking someone to court. Designating a suspect is just that. Designating someone as a focus in an investigation. If the investigation fails to turn anything up, the cops can't really do much (legally anyway). At that point, they're supposed to move on, but tunnel visioning being what it is, sometimes they don't pick up on the obvious.

That is what I have been saying from the very start - that the police should respect the rights of private citizens and not attempt to strong arm them.

I don't really have a problem with strong arming. Strong arming isn't illegal in itself, just distasteful but I'm fine with government doing distasteful things now and then. It's part of why we give the government power in the first place. To do all that crappy decision making the rest of us don't want to be bothered with.