On today’s episode of Uncanny Valley, we discuss how WIRED was able to legally 3D-print the same gun allegedly used by Luigi Mangione, and where US law stands on the technology.
tl;dr printers got cheaper
Unless you keep the gun I guess.
How do you mean? You 3D print something with no serial and it’s untraceable. Even if they find it they can’t definitively say your firearm shot the bullets. Unless of course you’re on video doing it and admit to it.
Didn’t Luigi get caught with the weapon in his backpack? The title picture on this article is literally him. If it’s untraceable by printing, it seems you’d want to not have it on you if apprehended.
Factually, they illegally searched his bag without a warrant at the mcdonald’s, repacked the bag, put the bag in a police vehicle and drove to the police station without bodycam, and then turned bodycam back on to search the bag again and instantly “find” the ghost gun in his bag, which, without a serial number, is conveniently impossible to prove it was not planted.
The motion goes on the state that once that officer’s body cam footage resumes, it shows her immediately re-opening and closing the backpack compartments she already searched and then opening the front compartment of the backpack “as if she was specifically looking for something. Instantly, she ‘found’ a handgun in the front compartment.”
Funny that they never deny the gun was his, just that the search was unconstitutional.
There’s no reason to deny invalid evidence
It does if you want people to believe the gun wasn’t yours. The gun isn’t the only evidence, and not denying it’s yours but trying to get it excluded from evidence confirms that it was yours and you’re trying to hide it. It screams guilty.
Good thing that’s not how evidence or the justice system works 😝
Your username is ironic lol
Almost like the lawyer thinks “they didn’t follow procedure” is an easier legal argument than “the police dept is trying to frame my client”.
The gun isn’t the only evidence. All they’re doing is drawing attention to the fact that it was his gun by not denying it was his and trying to get it excluded from evidence. Even if they win this argument and get the gun excluded, they’ve basically confirmed that the gun was his in doing so.
his gun
Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?
Nitpick the lawyer’s phrasing all you like; it won’t actually change any of the facts of the case, whatever they may be. Myself, I’m not going to jump to “why bother having a trial? The police arrested him; he’s clearly guilty as sin” based on a Lemmy comment!
