Jump to content

Boxer busted after bloody nose


Blackout

Recommended Posts

Bloody noses are commonplace in the sport of boxing, but for Toledo boxer Martin Tucker, a nosebleed suffered during a fight in April turned out to be more than unlucky. It was life-changing.

Tucker sustained a bloody nose during a bout in Toledo, and afterward Special Agent Robert Schmitz snagged a Q-Tip swab that had been used to clean Tucker's nose. The DNA from the Q-tip matched DNA from a mask worn during a bank robbery in 2009.

According to the Detroit News, Tucker was arrested on Tuesday and charged with robbing a bank and using a firearm during a crime of violence.

Tucker's arrest caps off a three-year search which started after two men stole $5,379 from a bank in July 2009. Authorities matched DNA for Quentin A. Sherer, who they believe to be one of the robbers, but they did not have a DNA match for Tucker. After seeing a photo of Sherer and Tucker on Myspace, the FBI began to investigate Tucker.

martin%5B071912%5D_main.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfectly plausible story. I'm sure the agent just happened to be there by coincidence and followed protocol to a T with this one.

Yeah I was thinking when I read this that there's a good chance the evidence gets thrown out of the courtroom. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special Agent Robert Schmitz snagged a Q-Tip swab that had been used to clean Tucker's nose. The DNA from the Q-tip matched DNA from a mask worn during a bank robbery in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIocUXN3eCk

Someone will be waiting for you at your door

When you get home tonight

Ah yes, he's gonna tell you darkness gives you much more

Than you get from the light

Classic plastic guards well they're your special friend

He sees you every night

Well he call himself the brother but you know it's no game

You're never out of his sight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Lance:

It's good that the police collect evidence to catch criminals, but where do you think the Founding Fathers would be on this issue?

They put in the Constitution strictures against illegal searches and seizures. Now we live in a world where cameras are on many street corners and in most buildings, cellphones send most of our conversations over the air where they can be accessed, and it will not be too long before the streets could be paved with a material which can pick up converstions on the street and send them to a supercomputer to be stored and accessed,

Remember that under the Constitution, conversations in public places are not protected. The difference between now and the late 1700's is that we are effectively turning all places into public places and rapidly inventing and installing devices that can see us, hear us, and analyze various bodily fluids and processes for identification purposes. This is just one example of this.

We won't have to bother overturning the Constitution-we'lll just invent our way around it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Lance:

It's good that the police collect evidence to catch criminals, but where do you think the Founding Fathers would be on this issue?

They put in the Constitution strictures against illegal searches and seizures. Now we live in a world where cameras are on many street corners and in most buildings, cellphones send most of our conversations over the air where they can be accessed, and it will not be too long before the streets could be paved with a material which can pick up converstions on the street and send them to a supercomputer to be stored and accessed,

Remember that under the Constitution, conversations in public places are not protected. The difference between now and the late 1700's is that we are effectively turning all places into public places and rapidly inventing and installing devices that can see us, hear us, and analyze various bodily fluids and processes for identification purposes. This is just one example of this.

We won't have to bother overturning the Constitution-we'lll just invent our way around it!

Apples and oranges: If the DNA was collected legally (which it was of course, or the court would have deemed it inadmissable) then what wrongdoing are we assuming here? If the agent had lifted his fingerprint off a gatorade bottle--would we still be as worried? Of course not. DNA evidence is an awesome tool. It gets it right every time. A viable sample is all the ID we need. Blood hair skin semen even tears--all are good DNA specimens. And lest we forget...a viable DNA sample is also valuable to any defendant. Many have benefitted from false accusal by NOT having a match to the sample taken. Our founding fathers believed in justice and fair trials, and DNA inhibits neither. Again, a sample taken legally is an excellent tool. And thats what we're talking about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...