Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, about 3 years ago

    Problem is that you have to be arrested first. The scary part is that you could be arrested for anything (jay walking included) in order to get your DNA.

  2. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Well since they can arrest you on suspicion and hold you for 72 hours without charge they can. But how many would say “no” to the police who are negligent in their knowledge of their rights? Many.

  3. WaitingMan

    WaitingMan said, about 3 years ago

    It was that notorious liberal, Antonin Scalia, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case, siding with four liberal justices. It isn’t just the “coddling liberals” who find this decision outrageous.

  4. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Because there are multiple things in our DNA and it is invasive. 4th Amendment violation.

  5. ronald rini

    ronald rini said, about 3 years ago

    I’m sorry but I see this in the long run catching criminals that have gotton away with a crime.

  6. WaitingMan

    WaitingMan said, about 3 years ago

    @WaitingMan

    My mistake. Three liberal judges.

  7. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, about 3 years ago

    I’m sorry but I see this in the not so long run framing innocents that have committed no crime

  8. FourcentsSr

    FourcentsSr said, about 3 years ago

    How convenient. And what is the difference?

    Terrorists are not criminals?
    Which President can you assume would not do these things and how long have you assumed that?
    Guilty!

  9. samhuff

    samhuff said, about 3 years ago

    And if you don’t jaywalk in Manhattan, the muggers will assume you are a tourist.

  10. PlainBill

    PlainBill said, about 3 years ago

    Almost too many errors to count. The big one is that there have been a number of case where an ‘expert’ testified to a positive DNA match – and then was proven to have deliberately lied.

    As far as Verizon, the articles have made it very clear that no conversations were monitored, they were looking at who called who.

  11. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    1. DNA is the new “fingerprint”, and taking blood samples under “implied consent” on drunk driving suspects is far more invasive.


    2. It’s also interesting how many people are being proven INNOCENT not guilty through DNA evidence.

  12. jackson49

    jackson49 said, about 3 years ago

    as Abbie Hoffman said in 1981..drug testing is the new Mc McCarthyism"..and here we are …using government money for dna trolling…

  13. water_moon

    water_moon said, about 3 years ago

    @dtroutma

    Because that’s ALL DNA can PROVE. DNA evidence can not PROVE that an person was at a crime scene thanks to the fact that we all have losts of the same sequinces. UNLIKE fingerprints. Now it CAN prove that some one does NOT match evidence, BUT the DAs like juries to hear DNA evidence becuase cop shows have led the general public to belive that it’s infallible.

  14. Refresh Comments.