Why 3D-Printing an Untraceable Ghost Gun Is Easier Than Ever
www.wired.com
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.

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.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    2 days ago

    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.

    https://www.wtaj.com/news/local-news/new-photos-show-luigi-mangiones-arrest-defense-argues-for-evidence-to-be-suppressed/

    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.”

      • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        19 hours ago

        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”.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auEnglish
          14·
          18 hours ago

          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.

          • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            9 hours ago

            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!

            • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auEnglish
              1·
              51 minutes ago

              Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?

              Did you just take those 2 words completely out of the context in which they were written? You sure did! I said:

              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.

              I’m saying that they’re essentially confirming that the gun is his by this action. Learn to read.

              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!

              Neither am I, nor am I saying anyone else should.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auEnglish
          14·
          18 hours ago

          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.

            • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auEnglish
              12·
              18 hours ago

              That’s how peoples opinions work, and no matter what any judge says, people can’t just forget and disregard that they know the gun was his just because a judge tells them that they are not supposed to know it was his.

              My username is randomly generated, but also not ironic in this situation. Freedom has nothing to do with this.