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.

    • elephantium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            56 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.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        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.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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.