Good police work or invasion of privacy... Or?

by **EvilDarkMagicians** » Sun May 22, 2011 6:15 am

I really don't understand get why someone wouldn't want their DNA checked over.

by **Sibirsky** » Sun May 22, 2011 6:20 am

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:I really don't understand get why someone wouldn't their DNA checked over.

Privacy issues.

Or they're guilty of the crime.

by **EvilDarkMagicians** » Sun May 22, 2011 6:39 am

Sibirsky wrote:
EvilDarkMagicians wrote:I really don't understand get why someone wouldn't their DNA checked over.

Privacy issues.

Or they're guilty of the crime.

The second one is obvious, but what do you mean by privacy issues?

What is the purpose or goal of being private about your DNA?

by **Volnotova** » Sun May 22, 2011 7:16 am

Both?

by **Sibirsky** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:15 am

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Privacy issues.

Or they're guilty of the crime.

The second one is obvious, but what do you mean by privacy issues?

What is the purpose or goal of being private about your DNA?

Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

by **Fartsniffage** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:21 am

Sibirsky wrote:
EvilDarkMagicians wrote:
The second one is obvious, but what do you mean by privacy issues?

What is the purpose or goal of being private about your DNA?

Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

Or their medical insurance company.

by **Sibirsky** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:46 am

Fartsniffage wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

Or their medical insurance company.

Yes. Also true. I doubt the cops would give it to the insurer though, but none the less, the point stands.

by **Fartsniffage** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:49 am

Sibirsky wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Or their medical insurance company.

Yes. Also true. I doubt the cops would give it to the insurer though, but none the less, the point stands.

I'm sure they wouldn't. Until a lobbyist put enough money into enough campaigns for the law to be changed.

by **Sibirsky** » Sun May 22, 2011 9:13 am

Fartsniffage wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Yes. Also true. I doubt the cops would give it to the insurer though, but none the less, the point stands.

I'm sure they wouldn't. Until a lobbyist put enough money into enough campaigns for the law to be changed.

Lawl.

by **The Grand World Order** » Sun May 22, 2011 9:54 am

Sibirsky wrote:Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

Because, as we all know, the police agencies of the world are lined with sicko perverts who have masturbatory fantasies with people's DNA samples.

"Oh yes, that root of hair is REALLY turning me on..."

by **Greater Tezdrian** » Sun May 22, 2011 9:55 am

The Grand World Order wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

Because, as we all know, the police agencies of the world are lined with sicko perverts who have masturbatory fantasies with people's DNA samples.

"Oh yes, that root of hair is REALLY turning me on..."

You, sir, are magniflorient in your wit.

by **Dyakovo** » Sun May 22, 2011 9:59 am

The Grand World Order wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

Because, as we all know, the police agencies of the world are lined with sicko perverts who have masturbatory fantasies with people's DNA samples.

"Oh yes, that root of hair is REALLY turning me on..."

Yeah, because that is what people's concern is... That the police will masturbate over their DNA sample... :roll:

by **Sibirsky** » Sun May 22, 2011 10:00 am

The Grand World Order wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Yeah, the person may not want the police to have his or her DNA.

Because, as we all know, the police agencies of the world are lined with sicko perverts who have masturbatory fantasies with people's DNA samples.

"Oh yes, that root of hair is REALLY turning me on..."

For whatever reason. I would go and give them my DNA because I haven't done anything wrong, and that's the easiest way to clear my name. I would not be happy about it, however.

by **Fartsniffage** » Sun May 22, 2011 10:00 am

Dyakovo wrote:
The Grand World Order wrote:
Because, as we all know, the police agencies of the world are lined with sicko perverts who have masturbatory fantasies with people's DNA samples.

"Oh yes, that root of hair is REALLY turning me on..."

Yeah, because that is what people's concern is... That the police will masturbate over their DNA sample...

Exactly. The police have the hard drives seized from peadophiles for that.

by **Kobeanare** » Sun May 22, 2011 10:54 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Kobeanare wrote:If that were the case, I'd be under arrest. Sibirsky explicitly stated that I wasn't.

No, you can be detained without being arrested (just not indefinitely).

For how long, then?

by **Dyakovo** » Sun May 22, 2011 10:55 am

Kobeanare wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:No, you can be detained without being arrested (just not indefinitely).

For how long, then?

I believe in NYS it is 24 hours, though I admit I'm not sure.

by **Roman Cilicia** » Sun May 22, 2011 10:55 am

All I got from that was that the rapist was probably not white.

by **Dyakovo** » Sun May 22, 2011 10:57 am

Roman Cilicia wrote:All I got from that was that the rapist was probably not white.

Because white people don't rape?

by **Roman Cilicia** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:00 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Roman Cilicia wrote:All I got from that was that the rapist was probably not white.

Because white people don't rape?

Because white people don't rape 80-year-olds.

by **Dyakovo** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:01 am

Roman Cilicia wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Because white people don't rape?

Because white people don't rape 80-year-olds.

by **Gravlen** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:26 am

Wesibaden wrote:i hope this asshole is found and have his balls chopped off I EXTREMELY hate rapist

The perpretrator was caught and convicted in both cases, but no barbaric punishments were meted out.

by **Gravlen** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:31 am

Roman Cilicia wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Because white people don't rape?

Because white people don't rape 80-year-olds.

Well that's a completely baseless and unfounded assertion.

And in this case, he has also confessed to raping a 16-year old in 1996.

Good police work or invasion of privacy... Or?

Who is online