I know nothing at all about the science behind this, but even if the science is sound this has to be a very bad idea, surely?
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I know nothing at all about the science behind this, but even if the science is sound this has to be a very bad idea, surely?
If the science is sound then it's a great idea. But it doesn't seem to help much...Bascially we seem to be looking for a brown man with a 50% chance of brown eyes. Not much to go on really!
My thinking is that even if the science is sound, your parameters are going to be vague enough that the very specific picture you're putting out is going to look like a lot of innocent people, who could then be inconvenienced for no great benefit (as you say, doesn't seem to help much). In that article by the police, they basically tell people to call them if they know a person who looks like that.
Basically this. There's no way the science would be so specifically accurate as to not cause mistaken identities. It's not DNA.
It’s literally DNA, but I get your point.
I think it comes down to how the technology is used. If it is being used as described above that sounds stupid, but if used to narrow down a large group of suspects it can be valuable. Also, some characteristics can be more definitive than others (red hair, dark skin, blue eyes, etc.), so the genetic markers for those traits can be useful. If anyone is interested in the theory and methods, here is a good review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976916/#!po=19.3878
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976916/#!po=19.3878
It’s literally DNA, but I get your point.
I get what you mean.fecking hell that’s SOOOO dodgy…
Can’t believe there are people in here saying ‘if the science is sound’ etc.
Last edited:
couldn't this be argued/considered racial profiling?
The same was said about STR analysis, about fingerprint analysis, etc. Today those are seen as gold standards of evidence.
For me, the use of any new science/technology should come down to:
1. Is the science sound and the controls robust?
2. Is the science being used in a manner that is impartial and will provide a benefit to investigators?
3. Will the use of the science cause harm to people/communities simply by its use, and is that harm offset by the benefits?
Based on a quick read of the review article I posted I would say the answer to #1 is a definite maybe but I don't see how the answers to 2&3 are not negative.
The science of it is, by definition, racial/genetic profiling, but not in the biased sense. The use of it here though is most assuredly in the vein of negative racial profiling.
You would also hope the police officers get some sort of jail time too. Miracle she didn't die. Really negligent.
What the actual feck. How not as a policeman but as a person crossed your mind to handcuff a 6 year old kid (and arresting, putting in a car etc...)?
How... I am baffled
She has dementia. Cops roughed her up, laughed/hi-fived over video, and attempted to delete video after she filed suit.
Last edited:
How is this possible (to even interrogate, never mind arrest a kid) without the presence of a parent or at least a social worker? Is it normal/legal in the US?
I was shocked that he survived.
I guess sometimes it's a good thing that American cops aren't properly trained.
Arrested for roadrage.
Chat shit get rammed.
Seems crazy the police partked there but hey at least they arrested her without shooting her which is better than most of the USA police vids you see
I was reading about this earlier. Puts out this traffic that it’s a car that took off on him earlier in the week. Walks up and just opens the door. Starts firing because ___? They Still charged the kid with assaulting an officer.
And…..it wasn’t the right car in the end anyway.
I think there was a post on this somewhere in here, but the badge was a new wrinkle for me.
They love to memorialize their wrongdoings.
You arrest a 6 year old for having a strop. What's the world coming to. She should have been made to have a time out until she came back and apologised.
And they charged the teen with assault & evasion.
No, that is not what I said. I said that certain characteristics (eye color, hair color, skin color) can, with relative certainty, be predicated. This information can be used to narrow down a potential suspect pool. The posting of a picture on that Tweet was irresponsible as there is no way that the face depicted was anything other than a generic reconstruction.
That being said, if you read the review article I posted above you will see that some characteristics (for example blue eyes) have a 90%+ confidence score, while others (blond vs brown hair) are much lower. These factors should be taken into account when deciding if the genetic phenotypic analysis yields credible results, not just guesses.
I'm unsure of just how much it can actually narrow down the potential suspect pool, given that it's just a very informed prediction. In the abstract of the paper you linked earlier, it says that the accuracy for prediction of hair colour was 0.64 - 0.94. Even if it's 94%, you can't really very effectively narrow down the suspect pool based on that. Even with the ones that get to 99%, there's an element of risk there, assuming you get to 99% and not the lower part of the range.
Absolutely there is, but I would say that 94% accurate is still better than the performance of most eyewitnesses, and their recollection is commonly used to narrow down the suspect pool, as is tire and shoe prints analysis. This type of analysis should never be used at trial to convict someone all by itself, but if it is part of a comprehensive analysis, it can be one of many tools used to solve crimes.
Why on earth have they called the police to deal with a child?
The whole thing is ridiculous
Well, we can’t have people running away while the police are trying to murder them for thinking they’re someone else from some other time, can we now?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-teen-sitting-mcdonalds-parking-lot-rcna51196
Seems like he's going to get charged with something, given the comments from the chief. I sure hope so. The kid is still charged, though (and also in hospital after getting shot several times). Also, there was a passenger in the car, so that was so close to being a double homicide, and that's assuming he didn't also hit a bystander after shooting wildly at a moving car.
Seems like he's going to get charged with something, given the comments from the chief. I sure hope so. The kid is still charged, though (and also in hospital after getting shot several times). Also, there was a passenger in the car, so that was so close to being a double homicide, and that's assuming he didn't also hit a bystander after shooting wildly at a moving car.
fecker was basically a trainee at that point. Should have been weeded out a long time ago.