State police plan to use driver photos in lineups

The Courier Journal | April 22, 2002 | Andrew Wolfson

[dixie sass]

"Dwight Neff, 50, said, ''If you're not guilty, you should have nothing to worry about.''"

Famous LAST words? I hope they never come back to haunt him.

[pocat]

That's pretty much how I feel.

I don't blame the cop, but I would like to catch the robber myself and kick the living sh!t out of him for causing this to happen!

[supercat]

"Dwight Neff, 50, said, ''If you're not guilty, you should have nothing to worry about.''"

Provided that the pictures are stored anonymously and "cold hits" are ignored [and there will most likely be so many of them that it should be obvious that they should be] I don't really see any intrusion of privacy here. If someone sees someone's face, the only thing they'll know is that the person pictured has or at some point had a state ID card of some sort. If names, addresses, etc. were distributed with the photos, or if "cold hits" were pursued, that would be another matter. If the function, however, is to provide "negative controls" for line-ups, however, the larger the sample population the less intrusive for anyone and the fairer for any criminal defendant.

[Fred Mertz]

Re: Your #19

I was taught never to aim at anything I didn't intend to kill.

So from a common man standpoint, the guy was wrong. But apparently, they teach the law enforcement types differently.

On a side note, one of my brothers was pulled over by a cop and the cop pulled his gun on him when my brother stepped out of his car. My brother was in an unfamiliar part of town and was driving in the wrong direction on a one way street (dumb move, sez I).

Naturally, my brother shook like a leaf and did nothing wrong (in his mind), but was charged with driving under the influence.

His attorney got my brother out of it based on the fact the cop pulled a gun on him. He may have had a few and he may have been tipsy, but the cop screwed up in his duties according to the court according to that part of the country.

[Fred Mertz]

I heard on tonight's news that the state had second thoughts about using your digital pics for line ups. They said the state will put this to rest.....for now.

Aren't we lucky? [/sarcasm]

[Travis McGee]

Ya don't point it AT a citizen's head until you're about to shoot him. Think back to the "super well trained FBI Enhahanced SWAT" guy who shot the face off the Eagle Scout in MD. Bad training.

[Squantos]

I'd never had a loaded gun pointed at my head before, and I thought I might have to go back home to change my underwear!..............

Welcome to the club Pocat !

ROTFLMAO !!! Sorry to giggle but ain't too many folks in this world that have had the opportunity to experience the "real" meaning of pucker factor .........

Of course you realize now there will be dues , meetings, conferences, silly hats , secret hand shakes, coin checks, whole lot of cold beer and BBQ...... etc etc .....

Stay Safe !.............Brawwwwahahah !!!

[Travis McGee]

'Tis better to give than to receive.

[ganesha]

I think everybody in Kentucky should claim to be a muslim and show up at the DMV in a burqa like that woman in Florida did, and then say their religion requires them to be photographed that way.

[Squantos]

Ditto that Travis.......:o) Stay Safe !

[Fred Mertz]

Hey, that's a good idea! What about the male portion of the population?

[PatrioticAmerican]

Combine face-recognition with a national ID system, and being a dead-ringer for somene means you are guilty. Victim gives simple facial descriptions, computer spits out possible matches, you go to jail.

[harpseal]

Gun drawn is acceptable. Pointed at your head before he identified you is not especially with your hands clearly on the steering wheel.

Quite honestly you should have been given the "felony stop treatment where the officer with gun drawn orders you out of the vehicle and has you lay down for frisking. This is on the basis of you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The walking up with gun pointed at your head is just not good procedure too many chances of accidents.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[southern rock]

Dwight Neff, 50, said, ''If you're not guilty, you should have nothing to worry about.''

Yet another idiot who should have his American citizenship revoked. He's too stupid to be an American. Deport him to South America, fast.

[southern rock]

It was a picture of a security guard "wanding" a college girl for weapons before she entered the Capitol building for a tour. The caption read, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

LOL, considering that "wanding" is the type of thing we are to be "vigilant" against. They missed the ENTIRE POINT of the quote they were using. Typical.

[Squantos]

Good point , I wonder if they even teach Felony stop anymore as we seem to be over run with lone rangers who go cowboy on SOP..........Gheeeeesh !

They endanger themselves and the suspects whom in most cases these days turn out to be innocent.

Stay Safe !!!

[pocat]

Honestly, I would have felt more comfortable with the routine felony stop. With me stepping out in full view, I think he would have been less nervous about what I had in the truck.

BTW - my wife works at the store, and I know the owner well. He's my local gun dealer. He put the word out that I would like to talk to the officer "mano a mano" about our encounter last week. I don't want to stir things up, but I'd like to discuss what happened, and it would be nice if he apologized. I won't hold my breath on that last part. Still, it should be a good chance to get to know a local LEO - something which I have neglected.

Squantos - So I'm now an official member of the Pucker Club? Where's my card?

[pocat]

Think back to the "super well trained FBI Enhahanced SWAT" guy who shot the face off the Eagle Scout in MD.

LOL!

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking about when I was pulled over! I remembered reading about it here.

I was thinking "Thank God this guy's not a fed!" Seriously, I would have been more nervous if he were.

[Tuor]

We are rapidly approaching an absolute police state, the likes of which have been previously impossible due to the limitations of technology.

You are absolutely right. This is what virtually every governmental action is leading towards. The Dems and Republicans are both for it, as the only question would be what ends the police state would be used for, not the need for a police state.

It's all about power. The more power the State has, the less power the individual has.

Feeling powerless yet?

Tuor