I think I might feel a bit differently about this if it had actually been an "appeal" to the entire gun owning community... & the populace of the state at large... like the aforementioned DNA requests. It wasn't. It was selective. Of course the likelihood that this process will render any useful information is virtually nill. How does testing 60 legally owned firearms negate the entire rest of the state populace as suspects?

Yes, they have to start some place. So of course they start with the most unlikely candidates.

We're back to what I pointed out in my previous post: it's the law abiding citizen who refuses to comply based on their Constitutional rights that's going to get labelled. They wil now become "persons of interest". The rabble get a pass.

You know, in a court of law (a least in THIS country) it is the prosecution that has the burden of proof. I suppose we should change that as well.

A .40 S&W, no no no , mines a .357 Sig.

Thank you for at least being civil. I'm not familiar with the area of the country where these murders occurred, but if it's an isolated, rural community and the crime appears to have been committed by a resident, why test every gun in the state? Like the DNA case, if 58 or 59 residents volunteer to have their guns tested and they're shown not to have been the murder weapon it sure limits the potential suspect pool.

If I were a member of that community, I'd be inclined to voluntarily let my gun be tested to locate the suspect, as I fear the police a lot less than I fear the killer of those two kids. I don't give a shit if my gun's ballistic info is in their possession, because my gun wasn't used in any crime(s). "The rabble" might include people with (IMHO) those only concerned with their constitutional rights (vs finding the killer), but if there was only one or two of those and the killer counted among those refusing to help it gives the police something to work with (vs ?).

If and when this case ever gets solved, the prosecution would have the burden of proof. The problem is how do you even reach that point without the very people who's community this is being willing to help? I hope there isn't any member of this forum who would stand by and let the killer of a couple of kids get away with the act. But how much assistance given to the police is a burden on one's constitutional rights, vs doing what's right?

quote:

If I were a member of that community, I'd be inclined to voluntarily let my gun be tested to locate the suspect, as I fear the police a lot less than I fear the killer of those two kids.

Did you do it? If not, then how is volunteering to have your gun tested helping anybody at all? It's wasting peoples' time, both yours and the people running the show by having them test a gun you know for a fact was not used in the commission of the crime.

quote:

"The rabble" might include people with (IMHO) those only concerned with their constitutional rights (vs finding the killer), but if there was only one or two of those and the killer counted among those refusing to help it gives the police something to work with (vs ?).

I don't care if it does help, picking on people who prefer to stand up for their Constitutional rights is wrong and should not be done.

quote:

If and when this case ever gets solved, the prosecution would have the burden of proof. The problem is how do you even reach that point without the very people who's community this is being willing to help? I hope there isn't any member of this forum who would stand by and let the killer of a couple of kids get away with the act.

If I heard the shots being fired, I would probably note that, suggest a location to look at, or what have you.

The murderer has nothing what so ever to do with me, and I know I didn't do it. Forfeiting my Constitutional rights is not going to help catch said killer. All it does is wastes everybody's time.

Doing what's right? Give me a freakin' break. Sure, if you happent to have information on suspicious activity in the area, or anything like that where you can help point the authorities to who maybe did it, yeah that is probably the right thing.

Knowing you didn't commit this crime and not being intimidated into "volunteering" to allow them to violate your rights is completely different than not volunteering observations you've made about people acting weird, or whatever.

I fail to see how they will locate a suspect by testing pistols.

We all know that the perp will NOT be there to let the murder weapon be tested. But say he has a second weapon of the same caliber the was purchased legally, he lets that one be tested and then he is off the list.

DNA is one thing, you can't change your DNA, you can't swap it out for a different DNA, you can't file the serial number from it.

If you ask me, they are just wasting valuable resources, time and money while the killer is still walking free.

I love internet chest thumping.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:The murderer has nothing what so ever to do with me, and I know I didn't do it. Forfeiting my Constitutional rights is not going to help catch said killer. All it does is wastes everybody's time.

Spoken like a true Southern Californian! Must be a transplant to MI. If one of those murdered kids was yours, you'd see things in a different light. I really hope you're never in a situation where you understand that.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:The murderer has nothing what so ever to do with me, and I know I didn't do it. Forfeiting my Constitutional rights is not going to help catch said killer. All it does is wastes everybody's time.

Spoken like a true Southern Californian! Must be a transplant to MI. If one of those murdered kids was yours, you'd see things in a different light. I really hope you're never in a situation where you understand that.

I've got no idea what California has to do with anything, and I'm originally from Michigan. Is it wrong to believe the Constitution should still stand for something? Is it wrong to believe that participating in a farce like this is really going to help solve anything?

Sir, if I had a kid(s)who was murdered, I would hope the authorities would try to do something intelligent, instead of wasting time checking out every gun that hasn't murdered the kids.

I would hope the authorities instead of doing stupid crap like this would rather appeal to the public to report any strange goings-on, strange vehicles, and all manner of other things like that.

I would hope that everybody understands that guns can be purchased face to face, thereby potentially negating the FFL records. Stolen guns from one area can be used in another, again negating the FFL records. People can move very efficiently from place to place, and perhaps the murderer got his/her gun someplace else, which again, makes this farce with the FFL records meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:


Spoken like a true Southern Californian! Must be a transplant to MI. If one of those murdered kids was yours, you'd see things in a different light. I really hope you're never in a situation where you understand that.

Suppose the parents of those poor children demanded a house-to-house search within the community? Would that be reasonable? It would certainly be more effective that the not-so-random hunt currently being conducted.

The perpetrators are suspected to have been driving a vehicle. Surely a vehicle inspection isn't out of scope. They might find expended casings or GSR.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:
Suppose the parents of those poor children demanded a house-to-house search within the community? Would that be reasonable? It would certainly be more effective that the not-so-random hunt currently being conducted.

The parents' demand for a house to house search wouldn't be either reasonable, effective, or constitutional. Asking for assistance from the limited pool of gunowners who's firearm matches the characteristics of ballistics evidence found at the scene isn't unreasonable and could greatly assist in the investigation. Again, if 58 gunowners volunteered to help and had their pistols eliminated from the pool of "possibles", it leaves the police with just two guns/owners to even consider as possible suspects.

Random vehicle inspections (for evidence in these crimes) are also unconstitutionally broad in scope.

Again, I don't profess to know the area or what evidence is in custody. But with the info given, I'd be willing to help the investigation and volunteers are not having any rights abridged.

quote:

Asking for assistance from the limited pool of gunowners who's firearm matches the characteristics of ballistics evidence found at the scene isn't unreasonable and could greatly assist in the investigation. Again, if 58 gunowners volunteered to help and had their pistols eliminated from the pool of "possibles", it leaves the police with just two guns/owners to even consider as possible suspects.

No. It leaves the police with just two legally purchased guns/owners to potentially mistakenly consider suspects, because it makes a huge assumption with regard to whether the guilty person(s) is a local and/or purchased the gun from an FFL.

You surely can't assume it was a local just based on who's around, last I checked automobiles and other rapid transit devices exist by which people can be conveyed long distances if they so desire.

Just for sake of discussion:

Suppose 58 of 60 owners of .40 caliber pistols living within 150 miles of the crime scene had their guns ballistics checked and were eliminated. If you were the investigating officer and you now had only two gunowners who didn't submit their pistols for testing, would it be reasonable to attempt a "knock and talk" with the two who didn't volunteer? Suppose one of those two talked to you and said they didn't want to submit his gun, but provided an "airtight" (verified) alibi of his whereabouts when the crime occurred. The remaining gunowner lives within a mile or two of the scene, he refuses to cooperate in any way and has (according to neighbors) kept his car in the garage since the day of the incident. Would it be reasonable to apply for a search warrant for the residence to look for the gun, check the vehicle for evidence (including the tires' impressions), empty casings/bullets, etc to compare with what was left at the scene?

If getting a search warrant is now reasonable, why wouldn't getting to this point using the cooperation of gunowning neighbors not be?

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
People can and do have the constitutional right to remain an assholes.

If you know you're not the criminal going in to give a DNA sample simply wastes everybody's time.

ASKING people to cooperate is OK, forcing people to cooperate is not... eventually the one will lead to the other.

Literally millions have died and been killed to defend the Constitution. Better never to find the killer than to set aside those sacrifices.

This is the classic dilemma. If you stand by your rights you become a suspect. Legal behavior becomes "probable cause".

An interseting thought comes to mind...suppose this type of action becomes common in the solution of gun related crimes...where does it stop, I mean how does one define the scope of this type of action. Does one bring in all the guns one owns that are .40 caliber or does one bring in just the guns that shoot .40 caliber too, I mean I have guns that shoot more than one caliber even though they are listed as another caliber. What happens if I like to collect guns in .40 caliber and have say 20 or 30 such guns do I bring them all in and if I do what kind of treatment do I expect to get, i.e., treated like the professional I am who collects guns as a hobby or as a freak with 30 of the murder weapons. If this practice becomes common practice do I have to haul them down for testing every time someone gets shot. Am I a suspect in every shooting now because I have guns of that caliber. No, I'm afraid the problems associated with this type of action while seemingly civic minded on the surface has far too many consequences hidden in it for a person to blindly fall into. I'm afraid I would have to say no and ask to see a warrant too.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:

No. It leaves the police with just two legally purchased guns/owners to potentially mistakenly consider suspects , because it makes a huge assumption with regard to whether the guilty person(s) is a local and/or purchased the gun from an FFL.

You surely can't assume it was a local just based on who's around, last I checked automobiles and other rapid transit devices exist by which people can be conveyed long distances if they so desire.

1) "Everyone" is considered a potential suspect until proven otherwise, but obviously the police can't conduct an investigation by investigating "everyone." You need to examine the "pool" of potential suspects and follow up on your best leads first if you entertain any hope to succeed.
2) Murders are rarely "random." Especially in rural communities where everyone "knows" everyone else. While it's possible that the killer didn't know the victim, there's a much higher probability that they knew each other. Maybe not well, but were at least acquainted. Investigating and eliminating as possible suspects those who live nearby and are connected to the crime in even the most basic way (ie: have a pistol that matches the basic ballistics in caliber, rate of twist, lands vs grooves, etc) offers the highest potential for solving the crime, just as checking on the victims' associates does. When a married woman is murdered, one doesn't just ignore the possibility that the husband did it. You investigate the possibility and if he's cleared, you check out the next best suspect(s).

One can never "potentially mistakenly consider suspects." You work your best suspects first with your limited resources and expand the search as further information is received.

3) The "bushy haired stranger" who comes to a rural community to kill is a very, very rare bird. Without evidence left at the scene or witnesses, finding him/her will depend on luck. (ie: an officer conducts a traffic stop that reveals evidence in the suspect's car) Any officer that depends on luck to solve his/her case isn't doing the job. You follow up using any information you might have and if luck provides you with a clue, great. But you can't just sit around and hope to get lucky. That's not what your paid to do.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
I fear the police a lot less than I fear the killer of those two kids. I don't give a shit if my gun's ballistic info is in their possession, because my gun wasn't used in any crime(s).

You've never been falsely accused then. Also, ballistics databases are known to be very inaccurate in making matches. Putting your data in there just clogs up the system and it puts you at real risk of falsely being convicted of a crime.

It really is a difficult situation for law abiding people because we want criminals caught and we want to help in any way we can. But, I also fear my government and it's ever expanding power over our lives. As someone pointed out, some police and prosecutors will knowingly let an innocent be convicted in order to suit their own careers. The Duke rape case is but one example of misconduct.

[Asshole Mode]
... and don't forget to add in the likely HUNDREDS of illegal, unregistered firearms in that state & neighboring ones. The actually pool of suspects doesn't stop at these 60 registered owners. That's naive & idiotic.

The OSBI is using the shotgun method in the blind hopes of picking up something, anything. I don't blame them for wanting to solve this. I do question their tactics & the logic behind it. "We don't have many clues. We don't have ANY suspects. Wait! We have 60 firearms owners who have legally registered .40 caliber handguns!"

Sadly, the number of unsolved cases in this country numbers in the tens of thousands. The tragedy & viciousness of the crimes is irrelevent. Some will never be solved. Others will take decades. It happens sometimes. It sucks. I truly hiope that isn't going to be the case here, but it may very well be.

[/Asshole Mode]

quote:

Originally posted by low8option:
An interseting thought comes to mind...suppose this type of action becomes common in the solution of gun related crimes...where does it stop, I mean how does one define the scope of this type of action.

I agree that the scope of this kind of investigation is and by necessity will always be limited. In this case, it appears that the community is small, rural and isolated. The type of weapon(s) used was limited to being a .40 caliber fired by a certain type of pistol (id'd via ballistics characteristics) that only a few (60) people in the community had. If this happened where I worked (in So. CA) there would be thousands of similar firearms and it wouldn't be remotely practical to test that many even if everyone who owned them brought them in. That's one of the reasons why I'm opposed to laws mandating "ballistic fingerprinting." The technology isn't there to justify the expense, it's too costly to add to the price of firearms and it's too easy to defeat by suspects who would use firearms unlawfully. There's no justification for imposing this burden on citizens who have the right to own firearms. That said, the police can and should be expected to follow up on firearms related evidence, like any other evidence.

A few years ago, I investigated a shooting at an inhabited dwelling/assault with deadly weapon case. The suspect was only described by race and sex. The weapon used was a .40 S&W with certain ballistic qualities (twist rate, lands/grooves) which were fairly common. The majority of shootings in my area were conducted with calibers other than .40 S&W (.22, .38/.357, 9mm). What made this shooting "different" was the casings left at the scene. They were "Corbon" and it was very rare to find that brand of ammo used.

A few weeks after the shooting, I read a teletype from a neighboring agency that arrested three guys for CCW. One of the three weapons recovered was a .40 S&W, two of the guys were from the neighborhood where our shooting occurred. When I checked with the arresting agency, I found the .40 was loaded with "Corbon" ammo. Prior to this, there was no way I could have had that gun tested to see if it matched our crimes. Now, I could and our agency paid several thousand dollars to expedite the testing that otherwise wouldn't have been done (due to a county backlog).

The gun matched, one of the suspects confessed to our crimes after I arrested him and confronted him with the evidence. I was pleased with the result, but this would never have happened in an area as heavily populated as So CA without a certain degree of focus on the particular evidence involved. It isn't constitutional or remotely practical to say, "We'll just round up everyone with guns and check them all!" Hell, I couldn't even had checked the seized pistol if it hadn't been linked to the crime via the fairly uncommon ammo and the fact the shooter lived nearby.

IMO, the murders discussed here have a good chance of being solved (with public assistance) due to the particular issues in this case. Maybe not, but it's a small enough community and serious enough crimes to warrant the effort. If I lived there, I'd support the effort.

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:
This is wrong for a few reasons.

No one is going to submit their gun if they used it in a crime or think it was used. Come on what a waste of time and money. This is because they have no good leads and want to look like they are doing something but instead they are wasting resources.

What happens with the test data. If the gun is found to have not been used where does the data go.

AMEN! +1 on: "No one is going to submit their gun if they used it in a crime...."

Pullicord - That's a great book, and I considered citing the Pitchfork case here, but really, what's the point? People will look for any reason to cry foul, even if it develops exculpatory evidence that rules them out of the suspect pool by the process of elimination. If a person owns a weapon of the same type used in a crime and chooses not to participate, they are certainly within their rights, but they cannot very well bitch and whine about remaining in the un-cleared category.

Pitchfork objected too, and tried to pass off someone else's blood for his own.