Hey Libs, you are gonna love this!!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm, a card and a photograph. Does anyone on here not have a drivers license, state I.D., or passport? Seems like your covered.

~Kyle

I would like to agree with you but, when states issue drivers licenses to illegals you gotta wonder if that is enough
Dont get me wrong, I am really not in favor of a us ID card

On the other hand, I am seeing different places that now almost require a US passport to prove your identity.

"Almost require". WTF does that mean? Either they require it or they don't.

Three is almost more than four.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hmmm, a card and a photograph. Does anyone on here not have a drivers license, state I.D., or passport? Seems like your covered.

~Kyle

I would like to agree with you but, when states issue drivers licenses to illegals you gotta wonder if that is enough
Dont get me wrong, I am really not in favor of a us ID card

On the other hand, I am seeing different places that now almost require a US passport to prove your identity.

"Almost require". WTF does that mean? Either they require it or they don't.

Three is almost more than four.

Thinking is not your strong point is it

As my son has went to jobs apps they have asked of forms of ID and "prefer" a passport if he has one( which he does not) so they ask for a birth cert

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hmmm, a card and a photograph. Does anyone on here not have a drivers license, state I.D., or passport? Seems like your covered.

~Kyle

I would like to agree with you but, when states issue drivers licenses to illegals you gotta wonder if that is enough
Dont get me wrong, I am really not in favor of a us ID card

On the other hand, I am seeing different places that now almost require a US passport to prove your identity.

"Almost require". WTF does that mean? Either they require it or they don't.

Three is almost more than four.

Thinking is not your strong point is it

As my son has went to jobs apps they have asked of forms of ID and "prefer" a passport if he has one( which he does not) so they ask for a birth cert

So they DON'T require it.

Passport not required, is NOT the same as Passport almost required.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Maybe no different that finger prints in the end and in today's world?

Your finger prints will have no effect on your ability to get health and life insurance if they find their way into the MIB database.

Having your finger prints on file is less likely to have you targeted for special monitoring, put in a mental facility, or sent back to prison "to protect society" than genes which show a predisposition to psychological illness.

[masterrig 1]

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Oh no?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Oh no?

Oops! I have been enlightened! Never mind!


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

Sorry, I thought the point would be clear

If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

Sorry, I thought the point would be clear

If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion

I usually have a better 'eye' for the obvious.
My opinion is and I don't know if it's good or bad is, building a data base for DNA can possibly be of greater help to law enforcement than a fingerprint data base. Since it's been pointed-out that there are 'problems' with DNA testing, seems like, they need to get it right and more 'quality control'. I don't see any difference in taking a 'swab' for DNA purposes any different than taking fingerprints upon arrest. Seems less messy, if anything.


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

Sorry, I thought the point would be clear

If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion

I usually have a better 'eye' for the obvious.
My opinion is and I don't know if it's good or bad is, building a data base for DNA can possibly be of greater help to law enforcement than a fingerprint data base. Since it's been pointed-out that there are 'problems' with DNA testing, seems like, they need to get it right and more 'quality control'. I don't see any difference in taking a 'swab' for DNA purposes any different than taking fingerprints upon arrest. Seems less messy, if anything.


Chuck

I know and agree with you points
I know there are holes in my opinion because after all, one is finger printed when booked into jail. Not much different in the end

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

Sorry, I thought the point would be clear

If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion

I usually have a better 'eye' for the obvious.
My opinion is and I don't know if it's good or bad is, building a data base for DNA can possibly be of greater help to law enforcement than a fingerprint data base. Since it's been pointed-out that there are 'problems' with DNA testing, seems like, they need to get it right and more 'quality control'. I don't see any difference in taking a 'swab' for DNA purposes any different than taking fingerprints upon arrest. Seems less messy, if anything.


Chuck

I know and agree with you points
I know there are holes in my opinion because after all, one is finger printed with booked into jail. Not much different in the end

To me, it's just a 'tool' to help law enforcement. Not unlike anything else, there can be flaws in it. The way I see it, we pay these guys to fight crime and get bad guys off our streets. They gotta try something to do the job right.


Chuck

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

Sorry, I thought the point would be clear

If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion

Why would the same not apply to fingerprints?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side.


Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt

If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not?


Chuck

Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect?

Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to?


Chuck

Sorry, I thought the point would be clear

If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion

Why would the same not apply to fingerprints?

It would that is why I mentioned it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

I think the same standard should be used for fingerprints, mug shots and DNA. The only reason people don't think to object to the practice of retaining a database of all people who are fingerprinted on arrest, even if they're not convicted, is because the commonality of that practice pre-dates when any of us was born; it dates back to the early 20th Century, when the US started to be a National Security State.

Look, we're all pissing in the wind about this. Anyone who thinks that, for example, arrest records that are expunged are truly gone is naive. The database of fingerprints is unbelievably massive, and not just from criminal arrests. People get fingerprinted, for example, when they are inducted into the military, join law enforcement or fire departments, become employed at many government jobs, get private-sector jobs with defense contractors, become members of the Bar (in a number of states); the list goes on and on. And then there was that program a few years back that scared parents into getting their children fingerprinted, as if that will really help the recovery of kidnapped children (like some sort of biological Lo-Jack). That database will be around forever, too.

The same thing, inevitably, will happen over the coming decades as technology marches on - creating databases of DNA profiles, retina scans, voiceprints, etc. It won't stop just because a few of us object to it on civil liberties grounds. After all, if we're not doing anything wrong, what do we have to hide? Best to just bend over, grab our ankles, and take it.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

I think the same standard should be used for fingerprints, mug shots and DNA. The only reason people don't think to object to the practice of retaining a database of all people who are fingerprinted on arrest, even if they're not convicted, is because the commonality of that practice pre-dates when any of us was born; it dates back to the early 20th Century, when the US started to be a National Security State.

Look, we're all pissing in the wind about this. Anyone who thinks that, for example, arrest records that are expunged are truly gone is naive. The database of fingerprints is unbelievably massive, and not just from criminal arrests. People get fingerprinted, for example, when they are inducted into the military, join law enforcement or fire departments, become employed at many government jobs, get private-sector jobs with defense contractors, become members of the Bar (in a number of states); the list goes on and on. And then there was that program a few years back that scared parents into getting their children fingerprinted, as if that will really help the recovery of kidnapped children (like some sort of biological Lo-Jack). That database will be around forever, too.

The same thing, inevitably, will happen over the coming decades as technology marches on - creating databases of DNA profiles, retina scans, voiceprints, etc. It won't stop just because a few of us object to it on civil liberties grounds. After all, if we're not doing anything wrong, what do we have to hide? Best to just bend over, grab our ankles, and take it.

I'd be more concerned with all the video phones in this country! People now days can't take a squat without fear of it showing-up on you-tube! There's your 'Big Brother'! Law enforcement agencies are using You-tube to find bad guys. You can't walk into very many businesses without being videoed. Does that keep you out of the 7-11 for a Big Gulp? I think, collecting DNA is the least of our concerns.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'd be more concerned with all the video phones in this country! People now days can't take a squat without fear of it showing-up on you-tube! There's your 'Big Brother'! Law enforcement agencies are using You-tube to find bad guys. You can't walk into very many businesses without being videoed. Does that keep you out of the 7-11 for a Big Gulp? I think, collecting DNA is the least of our concerns.

Interesting point. If memory serves, I think some of the hard evidence the led to the conviction of Timothy McVeigh was surveillance video from a 7-Eleven

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I'd be more concerned with all the video phones in this country! People now days can't take a squat without fear of it showing-up on you-tube! There's your 'Big Brother'! Law enforcement agencies are using You-tube to find bad guys. You can't walk into very many businesses without being videoed. Does that keep you out of the 7-11 for a Big Gulp? I think, collecting DNA is the least of our concerns.

Interesting point. If memory serves, I think some of the hard evidence the led to the conviction of Timothy McVeigh was surveillance video from a 7-Eleven

I just got to thinking about how everything is videoed... everything. It's not the government spying on us, it's our fellow man. In turn, they make it very simple for law enforcement. Photos and videoes are admissable in court, after all.
I think too, all the paranoia is mis-placed.

Chuck

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd be more concerned with all the video phones in this country! People now days can't take a squat without fear of it showing-up on you-tube! There's your 'Big Brother'! Law enforcement agencies are using You-tube to find bad guys. You can't walk into very many businesses without being videoed. Does that keep you out of the 7-11 for a Big Gulp? I think, collecting DNA is the least of our concerns.

Interesting point. If memory serves, I think some of the hard evidence the led to the conviction of Timothy McVeigh was surveillance video from a 7-Eleven

I just got to thinking about how everything is videoed... everything. It's not the government spying on us, it's our fellow man. In turn, they make it very simple for law enforcement. Photos and videoes are admissable in court, after all.
I think too, all the paranoia is mis-placed.

Chuck

Can't even make a skydive these days without someone videoing you and likely posting it on Youtube.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd be more concerned with all the video phones in this country! People now days can't take a squat without fear of it showing-up on you-tube! There's your 'Big Brother'! Law enforcement agencies are using You-tube to find bad guys. You can't walk into very many businesses without being videoed. Does that keep you out of the 7-11 for a Big Gulp? I think, collecting DNA is the least of our concerns.

Interesting point. If memory serves, I think some of the hard evidence the led to the conviction of Timothy McVeigh was surveillance video from a 7-Eleven

I just got to thinking about how everything is videoed... everything. It's not the government spying on us, it's our fellow man. In turn, they make it very simple for law enforcement. Photos and videoes are admissable in court, after all.
I think too, all the paranoia is mis-placed.

Chuck

Can't even make a skydive these days without someone videoing you and likely posting it on Youtube.

It's just gotten totally out of hand!




Chuck

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Can't even make a skydive these days without someone videoing you and likely posting it on Youtube.

someone post your latest adventure in flail? :)

--
Rob