To: Prime Choice
I object to fingerprinting people before they are convicted. Safety statists sold that freedom long ago.
10 posted on
12/07/2004 1:14:12 PM PST by
mysterio
To: mysterio
And you make an excellent point.
13 posted on
12/07/2004 1:18:33 PM PST by
.38sw
To: mysterio
I object to fingerprinting people before they are convicted. Safety statists sold that freedom long ago. So how do you presume to prosecute crimes that have no witnesses? Like burglaries or murders? You know...cases where the fingerprints are the key evidence linking the criminal to the crime?
Well, Einstein...I'm waiting.
24 posted on
12/07/2004 1:31:40 PM PST by
Prime Choice
(I like Democrats, too. Let's exchange recipes.)
To: mysterio
Without fingerprinting, how do you get a conviction?
47 posted on
12/07/2004 2:16:56 PM PST by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
To: mysterio
object to fingerprinting people before they are convicted. Safety statists sold that freedom long ago.
People are fingerprinted for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with convictions. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you shouldn't FEAR anything, even having your DNA on file.
I notice the ACLU and other activists are all for DNA if it gets someone out of prison.
68 posted on
12/07/2004 2:51:15 PM PST by
Beckwith
(John Kerry is now a kept man . . .)
To: mysterio
"Safety statists"
Why use two words when one words just fine? Cowards.
79 posted on
12/07/2004 3:14:52 PM PST by
NJ_gent
(Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson