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.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • joel_feila@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Common plan for professional hitman is to drop the gun at or near the scene. With a ghost gun what could tgey trace back

    • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 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
            2
            ·
            8 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.

          • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 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
                ·
                8 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.

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Yeah but they have video of him too. Idk the case well enough but I assume the gun itself wasn’t enough to prove he did it.