On site DNA recovery.

[Ri22o]

I heard a quick news short on the radio this morning about a new DNA kit that would allow police to collect DNA instantly off of guns.

I guess because guns are the weapon used in crimes?

 

[JcJ]

I heard a quick news short on the radio this morning about a new DNA kit that would allow police to collect DNA instantly off of guns.

I guess because guns are the weapon used in crimes?

Is this anything like the DNA found on Monica's blue dress?

 

[exar]

Yeah I can imagine that.

 

[DRob]

Whoa!

Is this anything like the DNA found on Monica's blue dress?

You'll have to answer that for yourself. I like my guns but not that much!

 

[indyjoe]

Dip your Glock in Bleach before committing a crime. Of course, then they only need to look for someone with a chlorine burn...

 

[Bigum1969]

Dip your Glock in Bleach before committing a crime. Of course, then they only need to look for someone with a chlorine burn...

Wouldn't the Glock just melt

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[Ri22o]

IMPD is now field testing DNA collection kits for use on handguns which are linked to crimes. Our evidence technicians can use the kit to swab the exterior surfaces of the gun and magazine and collect skin cells which have been deposited by the person(s) who have handled the gun. The amount of DNA which can be collected is often very small, depending on the texture or material of the firearm, particularly the grip and the top of the magazine, where skin cells are likely to shed off due to handling or loading the gun. Even the tiniest sample of DNA (only a few cells) can be amplified scientifically to the point that it is usable for comparison against a known suspect in a gun crime.

Many times, even though an officer witnesses a felon in possession of a firearm, a slick defense attorney can muddy the waters with convoluted arguments about how his client never had a gun. With this new evidence collection technique, it's hard for a defense attorney to argue against the proof of the criminal's DNA on the gun.

Today's jury member expects to see some sort of DNA, fingerprints, or other "hard" evidence in a criminal trial, especially with the popularity of "CSI" type shows on TV. Unlike the fiction on TV, it is rare to be able to obtain a good, usuable fingerprint off of the surface of a firearm. If these DNA collection kits work as they say they do, they are a big step forward in building solid cases against gun criminals. And getting gun criminals off of the street is something that is good for every law-abiding gun owner.

You are missing the point.

DNA and skin cells stick to more than just guns.

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[TRWXXA]

I'm not following you. These DNA kits are specifically for use in collecting evidence in gun crime cases. Like violent felons in possession of firearms, armed robberies, etc. Yes, guns are used in the overwhelming majority of violent offenses where a weapon is used. What is your point?

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*

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[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]

.

 

[ATM]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

.

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[RogerB]

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....