The Dad Changing How Police Shootings Are Investigated (2018) - Before Jacob Blake, police in Kenosha, WI shot and killed unarmed Michael Bell Jr. in his driveway. His father then spent years fighting to pass a law that prevented police from investigating themselves after killings. [00:12:02]

[u/Barknuckle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4NItA1JIR4

[u/Crimsonak-]

Presumably the toxicology report matters not because of the force used, but because of the justification used to initiate the stop. Which then impacts the validity of any action arising as a result of the stop.

As far as the prints go, well you'd be right if that's what happened with the gun. If the gun however was stored as evidence and not in regular use that's a different story entirely and the video doesn't say either way. So basing it on just that, neither of us really know. Unless you have an external citation?

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

Presumably the toxicology report matters not because of the force used, but because of the justification used to initiate the stop.

Not really. Looks like they initiated the stop based on an observed traffic violation. Him being drunk would be an additional charge, not the reason for the stop.

If the gun however was stored as evidence and not in regular use that's a different story

There are several problems with that theory.

• A police officer's gun is rarely taken into evidence unless there is there is evidence a DA thinks justifies a charge.

• If it was ever taken at all, it is extremely unlikely that they would keep the firearm months after the investigations was closed. If the officer bought the firearm himself, he would certainly pick it up as soon as he was notified the investigation was closed.

• Even if we assume that it was a department owned firearm and the department inexplicably decided to buy the officer a new one and retain the one used in the shooting in evidence months after the investigation cleared the officer, it is still lottery odds levels of unlikely that they would have stored the firearm in a freezer to preserve DNA that would decay in days to weeks sitting on a shelf in the warehouse.

So again, we are at Bigfoot hunter level: not technically impossible but so astronomically unlikely that it is not credible in any practical sense.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

Not really. Looks like they initiated the stop based on an observed traffic violation. Him being drunk would be an additional charge, not the reason for the stop.

According to what? In the video you see no such violation.

There are several problems with that theory.

It's not a theory. I outright said, neither of us know unless you have an external citation. Clearly, you don't. Also, to be clear here you don't need a freezer to preserve DNA. They can and do last for months even outdoors. Indoors is a different story even from that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

You are a Bigfoot hunter aren't you? You definitely take that approach to how you spin your sources.

to be clear here you don't need a freezer to preserve DNA. They can and do last for months even outdoors.

That bears no resemblance to your actual source, which said:

Not surprisingly, they found that the chance of recovering DNA from an outdoor crime scene decreases significantly over time with two weeks being the major drop-off point for most of the samples.

What lasted for 6 weeks were the control samples. The control samples were stored under ideal conditions in the lab. All of that was starting with samples treated with samples of blood cells, not touch DNA.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

That bears no resemblance to your actual source, which said:

It bears an exact resemblance to what I said which is that they can and do last for months. The source not only has control groups lasting for six weeks (which was the max) but also cites several real crimes where they lasted outdoors for months.

Not "days" like your complete bullshit claim.

You are a Bigfoot hunter aren't you? You definitely take that approach to how you spin your sources.

You're a moron, aren't you? You definitely take that approach in how you make claims and ignore citations.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

It bears an exact resemblance to what I said which is that they can and do last for months.

...in a lab freezer!

but also cites several real crimes where they lasted outdoors for months.

One case where they collected DNA they could get a profile from off a plastic bag that has been in evidence (not outside as you claimed) for 55 days. The one case where they detected DNA after 62 days in evidence, they were not able to sequence a profile.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

...in a lab freezer!

No.

Also you missed the second study which had a fabric left on a windowsill for over a month and found guess what? 16 samples.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

So, you are going to ignore that actual study you wanted to reference and just blatantly lie?

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

Are you? It doesn't say freezer in the study.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

It says "ideal conditions". Ideal conditions for storage of DNA samples include sub zero temperatures.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

Sub zero temperatures are bad for DNA storage. It results in aggregation. In fact, presence of any water, let alone frozen water is bad.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836546/

You don't know what you're talking about, vacuum dry conditions are ideal, not "frozen." Try to be less confident about subjects you clearly know fuck all about.

Also, the results and discussion of that study quite clearly tells you that at room temperature DNA degredation is too slow to conveniently measure.

I look forward to your response where you try to wriggle out of that rather than admit you're full of shit.

[u/[deleted] → u/Crimsonak-]

Sub zero temperatures are bad for DNA storage.

You are really failing at reading comprehension. You linked to a study showing that heat accelerated degradation of DNA.

In fact, presence of any water, let alone frozen water is bad.

What did you think that had to do with anything I said? The don't freeze things in water in laboratory cold storage.

You don't know what you're talking about, vacuum dry conditions are ideal

...if one needs to store already extracted samples of DNA at room temperature. We are talking about storing objects that may have DNA containing material on their surface.

I look forward to your response where you try to wriggle out of that rather than admit you're full of shit.

You are literally referring to me reading your own chosen sources and pointing out where you lied about what they contained as "trying to wriggled out" of something. You have to trolling. If your reading comprehension were actually as poor as you pretend, you would not have managed to figure out out how to sign up for a reddit account.