Are there legitimate reasons not to be fingerprinted?

[littletommy]

I think you have a serious disdain for any and all things related to law enforcement and you take every available opportunity to voice that disdain.

I can honestly say that I, in general, do have a serious disdain for any and all things law enforcement, because I drive I-65 every day and see ISP motorcycle morons running out into the fast lane of traffic to flag down a car so they can jerk off while writing a ticket, all the while ignoring the fact that they just damn near caused a multi-car pile-up because people freaked because an idiot was running into the fast lane of traffic. Thats about the extent of my run-ins with the man, but I'll tell ya, every time I see it happen, the image of your profession gets lower and lower in my eyes, and the eyes of others who just about crapped themselves because an idiot ran into traffic.

 

[E5RANGER375]

ill add, its not our job as citizens to show that we support the police. while it IS the responsibility of the police and government to be accountible to us citizens!!! and any police officer who feels they are not accountible to us citizens or the law then YES i DO despise those police! so its not unreasonable for us to ask questions. any cop that thinks they are on top of the food chain, has been severely mis-informed! Citizens are the CEO's

by forcing people to be fingerprinted you have taken away their right to privacy, and are in essence oppressing them. i have every right not to be put into a data base and be profiled. the abuse realy comes too when they use your finger prints without your permission for other things.
all my prints, blood, urine, etc, was taken as a soldier, and i agreed to it and accept it for that purpose. also i submitted to it to get my LTCH and other goodies. I however do not agree with it!! not for LE purposes to be "granted" permision to access rights that are mine to begin with and no mans to give me in the first place.
i dont like being lumped into any group, or profiled. thats exactly why they want your prints, so they know where to find you when they come for your guns.
thats why i dont put any gun stickers on my car, etc. i dont wanna be singled out.

 

[techres]

Privacy
Primacy
Power

 

[88GT]

So what do you think? Are there legitimate reasons why honest people don't want to be fingerprinted?

Yes. It's the honest people that get crapped on when someone in authority screws up.

 

[JBusch8899]

When it comes right down to it, and feel free to chime in Frank, the leadership over and within the department is the real issue in such matters.

 

[JBusch8899]

Originally Posted by Frank_N_Stein
...I think you have a serious disdain for any and all things related to law enforcement and you take every available opportunity to voice that disdain...

Does anyone else suspect that E5RANGER375, as well as Smoking357, may be the same individual?

 

[public servant]

Does anyone else suspect that E5RANGER375, as well as Smoking357, may be the same individual?

No...one can spell. The other cannot.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Does anyone else suspect that E5RANGER375, as well as Smoking357, may be the same individual?

No, pay attention.

 

[JBusch8899]

... its not our job as citizens to show that we support the police. while it IS the responsibility of the police and government to be accountible to us citizens!!!....

Actually, the relationship of the two are symbiotic, as the support of both is needed to effectively combat crime. The examples of an uncooperative citizenry to law enforcement, and the resulting ineffective enforcement, are too numerous to list.

 

[econnell]

Yes. It's the honest people that get crapped on when someone in authority screws up.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Does anyone else suspect that E5RANGER375, as well as Smoking357, may be the same individual?

HELL NO!!! read his post and then read mine! i believe what i say. i dont just stir the pot to stir it. i say what i feel and believe. yeah i do want people to get pissed off and wake up because i love this country with all my heart and want it to survive. you dont have to like or agree with what i say, nor do i you, but i dont troll.

i do support good law enforcement. but just like our government, LE as a whole is getting way too big and abussive of its power, so its time to real them back in and put them back in the right size pants. by legal means of coarse.

Smoking doesnt want ANY law enforcement. totaly opposite of what i believe.

good point public servant, your right i cant spell worth a crap nor do i care to

 

[Bill of Rights]

Does anyone else suspect that E5RANGER375, as well as Smoking357, may be the same individual?

I have no such suspicion.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not sure who exactly set the policy currently in place at the property room when it comes to releasing firearms and fingerprinting the owners. My personal opinion is that if the firearms are owned legally and were not taken as the result of an arrest or domestic violence incident, they should be returned to the owner ASAP, without fingerprinting. That is just my though and really doesn't carry much weight.

Thank you. While I recognize that that is your opinion and appreciate it as such, I also recognize that you're more in a position to influence a change in that policy than I or any other non-LEO, though perhaps not so much as an IMPD officer. Is there any effort ongoing (or even possible) to change that from "within the ranks"? Additionally, you said, "...not taken as a result of a[]...domestic violence incident..." As this could include an unfounded accusation, would the return also include those firearms incorrectly seized where no crime has been committed (and where a protective order was obtained by fraudulent or unnecessary means? (I refer to the case of a soon-to-be-ex claiming to be in fear of his/her life where the gun owner has made and continues to make NO threat, or to the "standard practice" of requesting such an order with a divorce filing. (and before anyone asks, yes, the question is hypothetical, addressing only a flaw I've seen in the law on this since the "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" was added to the reasons why someone was not permitted to own a firearm.)))

How do you know I don't stand up for what is right? You don't know me from anyone, but you continually talk **** about my profession. I think you have a serious disdain for any and all things related to law enforcement and you take every available opportunity to voice that disdain. I could do the same thing with all of the military members that have been arrested for rape, murder, theft, DUI, etc but I chose not to. Funny how no one ever wants to start threads about what servicemen (and women) do.

Guys, once again, this thread is addressing the issue of fingerprinting to accomplish the return of one's private property, once seized by police, specifically IMPD, but if any other departments have similar policies, they would be included. I can't split the thread now because Frank's answer to me addressed both, and I really do NOT want to have to close the thread, so I'll ask this very clearly and politely:

PLEASE, if you want to discuss arrests of police, take it to a different thread. If you want to cop-bash, military-bash, LTCH-bash, or whatever-bash, take it off of INGO.

Thanks very much for your cooperation and assistance.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ultraspec]

Tell you what go sign on to the military like I did in 98' they do DNA on you....talk about being pissed as I dont feel there is any reason to compell me to have to give my damn DNA to anyone as Ive never committed a crime.

fingerprints are nothing compared to the invasion of DNA. But yeah if its yours they shouldnt require anything of you other than a signature.

 

[AFA1CY]

Tell you what go sign on to the military like I did in 98' they do DNA on you....talk about being pissed as I dont feel there is any reason to compell me to have to give my damn DNA to anyone as Ive never committed a crime.

fingerprints are nothing compared to the invasion of DNA. But yeah if its yours they shouldnt require anything of you other than a signature.

But you volunteered to join.

 

[ultraspec]

But you volunteered to join.

Ah hell I was young and dumb. I didnt realize until well down the road that they did that. I was 17 what can I say. I must have liked it somwhat though as I did over 10 years.

 

[JBusch8899]

....... you dont have to like or agree with what i say, nor do i you, but i dont troll.

No, you just throw insults at others and lightly disguise it as disagreement.

i do support good law enforcement. but just like our government, LE as a whole is getting way too big and abussive of its power, so its time to real them back in and put them back in the right size pants. by legal means of coarse.

Smoking doesnt want ANY law enforcement. totaly opposite of what i believe.

Really? I'll then repeat the sentiment of another poster:

Originally Posted by Frank_N_Stein ...I think you have a serious disdain for any and all things related to law enforcement and you take every available opportunity to voice that disdain...

I don't necessarily disagree with your beliefs that there is entirely too much corruption and abuse is present in all levels of government. However, the offense you take to such, IMO, clouds your judgment to the point that the you don't believe that anyone within the government actually possesses any power.

You may believe that you may be Libertarian, but the extreme nature in which you push said beliefs, is much closer to anarchy.

 

[Prometheus]

As someone pointed out earlier, finger prints aren't 100% in either direction.

Neither is DNA. Some people have two sets of DNA! Yes, you right.

Check out the discover health series "I am my own twin" if you like to watch TV rather than read the scietific papers. As many as 1 in 5 people may have two sets of DNA in them.

They like to say that DNA may not prove you did it, but it'll prove if you are innocent... not true. If you have two sets of DNA, the semen/hair you leave may not have the same DNA as the blood/saliva they sample.

Unless ordered by a judge after a sworn statement based on solid probable cause, fingerprints and/or DNA should not be taken. In addition, juries need to be instructed about the actual false positives/negatives ratios when weighting such evidence in court.

 

[public servant]

good point public servant, your right i cant spell worth a crap nor do i care to

Who said I meant you?? Just jingling your chain.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Additionally, you said, "...not taken as a result of a[]...domestic violence incident..." As this could include an unfounded accusation, would the return also include those firearms incorrectly seized where no crime has been committed (and where a protective order was obtained by fraudulent or unnecessary means? (I refer to the case of a soon-to-be-ex claiming to be in fear of his/her life where the gun owner has made and continues to make NO threat, or to the "standard practice" of requesting such an order with a divorce filing. (and before anyone asks, yes, the question is hypothetical, addressing only a flaw I've seen in the law on this since the "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" was added to the reasons why someone was not permitted to own a firearm.)))

Even if a domestic violence accusation that is made turns out to be false, the police still have to thoroughly investigate it and take appropriate action in good faith that the accusation is true. If it is proven that the accusation is false, the firearms that were seized should be returned ASAP to the owner.

It is my opinion that any firearm that is seized for whatever reason should be returned to the owner if the owner is legally allowed to possess those firearms. No him-hawing around, just get it done.