DNA Matched

**khess83** · 05-18-2009, 06:04 PM

Per WHO-DTV

DNA Links Slain Suspect To Sexual Assaults, Home Invasions - WHO

**isuno1fan** · 05-18-2009, 06:05 PM

No shock here....

Like I said in the original thread, he got what he deserved. Good job to the WDM Police Dept!

**ISUFan22** · 05-18-2009, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by isuno1fan

Like I said in the original thread, he got what he deserved. Good job to the WDM Police Dept!

+ 1 million.

**tidbit** · 05-18-2009, 06:10 PM

Alot of people will give a sigh of relief tonight, including women in D.M and WDM, as well as the police officers involved. This will save a lot of what if's and probable law suits if the DNA did not mach. I hope this will end all the what ifs.

**jumbopackage** · 05-18-2009, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by tidbit

Alot of people will give a sigh of relief tonight, including women in D.M and WDM, as well as the police officers involved. This will save a lot of what if's and probable law suits if the DNA did not mach. I hope this will end all the what ifs.

Why does it matter if the DNA matched?
Whether the guy was guilty of the assaults/burglaries has no bearing on whether or not the guy should have been shot by the cops.

While it is probably more palatable to most people that a guy who likely perpetrated the crimes in question was shot, it doesn't forgive the cops for shooting the guy out of hand.

**Mr Janny** · 05-18-2009, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

Why does it matter if the DNA matched?
Whether the guy was guilty of the assaults/burglaries has no bearing on whether or not the guy should have been shot by the cops.

While it is probably more palatable to most people that a guy who likely perpetrated the crimes in question was shot, it doesn't forgive the cops for shooting the guy out of hand.

as far as the letter of the law is concerned, you are most certainly correct. However, the letter of the law doesn't matter when it comes to the court of public opinion, and had these DNA tests not matched, it would have been a much more difficult situation, regardless of if the cops were 100% justified.

**ISUFan22** · 05-18-2009, 06:28 PM

Are we really going there again? The guy "came at the police" with a gun. What were they supposed to do? Ask him if he would pretty, pretty please put down that bad gun?

**CycloneErik** · 05-18-2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Are we really going there again? The guy "came at the police" with a gun. What were they supposed to do? Ask him if he would pretty, pretty please put down that bad gun?

Exactly. There isn't a lot of time to chat and reason with the guy when he comes down the stairs with a gun.

**Cyclonick182** · 05-18-2009, 06:36 PM

Ive done my best to stay away today to avoid anymore public boneheaded comments(Im still wanting to hide under a rock for said comments), but this called out to me. I think the cops did exactly what they should have done if we was coming at them with a gun drawn. You only have a split second to react and I feel they did what they had to.

**Mr Janny** · 05-18-2009, 06:49 PM

absolutely, the police did the right thing. They were justified to use lethal force. My point, however is that despite this fact, had the DNA tests come back negative, the DM police would have had a much tougher time with public opinion. There really isn't any arguing this point. Society likes to maintin the status quo, and that generally does not include police officers killing people in their own homes unless there is a very good reason for it. In this case, a man threatening police officers who are serving a warrant is a very good reason, however, a rapist threatening police officers is a much better one as far as society is concerned. It's much easier to say that justice has been served.

**jumbopackage** · 05-18-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by jdewaard

as far as the letter of the law is concerned, you are most certainly correct. However, the letter of the law doesn't matter when it comes to the court of public opinion, and had these DNA tests not matched, it would have been a much more difficult situation, regardless of if the cops were 100% justified.

The court of public opinion hung witches in Salem and kept segregation going in the south. The legal system exists as it does to be as fair as possible to every citizen.

Not to mention that DNA evidence isn't the be-all-end-all in terms of evidence. CSI, and shows like it, has done an incredible disservice to the justice system over the years.

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Are we really going there again? The guy "came at the police" with a gun. What were they supposed to do? Ask him if he would pretty, pretty please put down that bad gun?

That's what the police have reported. It isn't necessarily the truth.

Originally Posted by Cyclonick182

Ive done my best to stay away today to avoid anymore public boneheaded comments(Im still wanting to hide under a rock for said comments), but this called out to me. I think the cops did exactly what they should have done if we was coming at them with a gun drawn. You only have a split second to react and I feel they did what they had to.

I tend to agree that if he was coming at them with a gun drawn, the cops did what they had to do.

The police have a vested interest in that story being accurate, so it makes me less likely to just take them at their word off-hand. It's not like there hasn't been a recent history of police abuse/overreaction in the area lately...Update: Couple cleared in traffic-stop trial | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register

**CyCrazy** · 05-18-2009, 06:54 PM

even if there were no dna match who cares we got another scum off the streets, its not like normal people come running at cops ready to shoot if they are innocent

**ISUFan22** · 05-18-2009, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by jdewaard

My point, however is that despite this fact, had the DNA tests come back negative, the DM police would have had a much tougher time with public opinion.

Certainly. I still think they would have been justified, as anyone that comes at an officer with a gun is asking for trouble - but it would not have been as clear cut.

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

The court of public opinion hung witches in Salem and kept segregation going in the south. The legal system exists as it does to be as fair as possible to every citizen.

Not to mention that DNA evidence isn't the be-all-end-all in terms of evidence. CSI, and shows like it, has done an incredible disservice to the justice system over the years.

That's what the police have reported. It isn't necessarily the truth.

I tend to agree that if he was coming at them with a gun drawn, the cops did what they had to do.

The police have a vested interest in that story being accurate, so it makes me less likely to just take them at their word off-hand. It's not like there hasn't been a recent history of police abuse/overreaction in the area lately...Update: Couple cleared in traffic-stop trial | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register

And here we are again. Assuming guilt of the now dead criminal was unfair (innocent until proven guilty), yet assuming innocence on the part of the police isn't completely ok either.

Round and round in circles we go...where it stops, nobody knows!

**jumbopackage** · 05-18-2009, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Certainly. I still think they would have been justified, as anyone that comes at an officer with a gun is asking for trouble - but it would not have been as clear cut.

And here we are again. Assuming guilt of the now dead criminal was unfair (innocent until proven guilty), yet assuming innocence on the part of the police isn't completely ok either.

Round and round in circles we go...where it stops, nobody knows!

No, the alleged criminal IS innocent until proven guilty. And the police officers are too. It doesn't, however, mean that the police were justified until proven otherwise. It just means that while the investigation is ongoing, it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that the police were justified. They have a much higher burden of responsibility than the alleged criminal in this case. They are instruments of the state that wielded lethal force on behalf of the state.

Much like anyone else who kills someone in self-defense, you don't clear them of manslaughter or murder before you get all the details from as many people as possible. The instruments of the state are human too, and make human decisions with human prejudices. Without a system in place to hold them accountable for their actions - justified or not - you give them carte blanche to act with impunity.

**Mr Janny** · 05-18-2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

The court of public opinion hung witches in Salem and kept segregation going in the south. The legal system exists as it does to be as fair as possible to every citizen.

exactly my point. Public opinion has a powerful impact, regardless of what the law says. One only need to look at the Rodney King verdict and the resulting riots to see that. Now, I am not saying that DSM would have been on the brink of riots if these DNA tests would have been negative, but it certainly might have swayed a lot of opinions.

As far as the infallibility of DNA testing goes, again it really doesn't matter. If a big enough segment of the public thinks CSI is correct and DNA testing is 100% accurate, then that's what will shape their opinions. Intelligence and correctness don't always factor in.