http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360 When it comes to crime, the public expects a certain level of service from its police department.  They expect them to respond to complaints, secure evidence, investigate and hopefully arrest the bad guys.  It's an added bonus if they can respond while the crime is still taking place, but there's no guarantee that will happen.  What would you say if you had a city where the crime rate seems to be going up and, while the police still respond, it turns out they take a lackadaisical approach to en-us Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:22:59 EST Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:07:16 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#11 Increased power should be matched by increased scrutiny.  The police are in a position to commit and conceal crimes that normal people are not in, and should therefore be scrutinized more carefully.<p> The same goes for politicians. Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:07:16 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#10 Heh. But really, no. I'll happily run up the flag for jurisdictional issues and questions of balancing private vs. public rights. Arguing that the innocent have nothing to fear from mandatory searches, however, misses the point that the search itself is so Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:01:25 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#9 There's always a first time.  ;-) Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:43:24 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#8 <i>Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?</i><p> You know, if you looked at my past posts, you'd see that I've <i>never</i> made that argument. Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:21:56 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#7 Cute how gerry is suddenly all about privacy rights. Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:54:45 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#6 <i> Elimination of samples is a valid reason to justify taking DNA once, and storing it in a separate database. Right now, the cops are complaining that the only DNA database they use is the one which is linked to crime evidence.  </i><p> IIRC, the fo Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:43:59 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#5 <i>This is the same as refering to responding officers' fingerprints when looking at what is at a crime scene.</i><p> Elimination of samples is a valid reason to justify taking DNA <i>once</i>, and storing it in a separate database. Right now, the cops are Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:12:33 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#4 DNA gets <i> everywhere</i>. This is the same as refering to responding officers' fingerprints when looking at what is at a crime scene. If you have 3 DNA profiles, you need to know which one is the 'good guys' (victims, cops, etc) so you can flag the othe Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:28:10 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#3 That does put a different spin on it.  I read it like pO at first.  Why would this been needed? Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:11:16 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#2 <i>What really gets me is the union guy complaining about having to test for prints or DNA at most crime scenes.</i><p> You're reading that wrong from the article, pO157. The <a rel="nofollow" href="http://secondcitysarge.blogspot.com/2008/09/dna.html">pol Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:28:26 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/19/121446/360#1 <i> All of this sent a message to police on the beat that, according to John Pallohusky, president of the police sergeant union, "guys feel the superintendent and the administration does not have their back." </i><p> Translation: Being a police officer isn Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:33:48 EST string http://www.treesandthings.com/search/