Advertisements

Autopsy: ‘A forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy says the wounds don’t show that Brown was running away or had his hands up’

1413981682172.cached

The evidence supports Wilson’s claim that Brown’s hand was on or near his gun

The official autopsy and toxicology report on Michael Brown shows he was first shot at close range and had marijuana in his system. Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson has told investigators that Brown went for his gun inside the police vehicle. The autopsy shows two close-range wounds, one of which has discharge material inside it consistent with a shot as close as one inch. Brown’s blood was also found on the gun. The evidence supports Wilson’s claim that Brown’s hand was on or near his gun. A forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy says the wounds don’t show that Brown was running away or had his hands up. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

FERGUSON AUDIO BOMB: ‘If the FBI were to come out of its investigation with the conclusion that this recording is legitimate, it would likely change the case considerably’

If the Michael Brown Audio Is Real, It May Corroborate Piaget Cranshaw’s Account

Charles C. W. Cooke, The Corner:

…Given how close the first and second shots on the recording are (less than a second), it seems unlikely that Brown would have had enough time to have escaped the clutches of a police officer and run past three cars before the second shot was fired. Moreover, if the “several more shots” of Johnson’s recollection represent the second fusillade, what happened to the remaining four shots from the first barrage? Again, I suppose it is possible that the recording missed the initial couple of shots. But had a police officer fired so many rounds from such short range and paused half way through, I’d expect that Johnson would have said so(read more)

HotAir‘s Allapundit:

…If it’s authentic, it tells us how many shots were fired. The man’s attorney tells Don Lemon she hears 11 shots. I hear 10. A forensic examiner who listened to the tape told CNN he heard“at least 10,” six shots followed by a pause followed by four more. The autopsy report from the family’s forensic pathologist claims Brown was hit at least six times, all from the front. Read the rest of this entry »


How 3D-Printed Guns Are Shooting a Hole Through Firearm Regulation

printedgun-finalart writes: The first ever firearm to be made with a three-dimensional printer looks less like a deadly weapon and more like a Fisher-Price toy. Just slightly larger than the human hand, it has a triangular white plastic body with innocuously rounded edges. There’s a bright blue, ridged grip extending off one side and a short, removable cylinder at the other for the barrel. Its innocent outward appearance belies its inherent threat. The plastic printed gun was designed to fire bullets just as effectively as the standard metal version, yet it has no serial number and requires no permit. It also works.

In May 2013 at a nondescript location in a scrubby portion of the Texas desert, the first printed gun was mounted on a metal stand and a rope looped around the trigger. When the rope was pulled, a bullet flew out of the squat barrel with an explosive flash, leaving the plastic singed but unharmed. Read the rest of this entry »


Why 3D-Printed Untraceable Guns Could Be Good For America

Paul Hsieh

UPDATE  Feds demand removal of 3-D printable gun plans from the Internet  possible export law violation —- via Hot Air

In the past few days, Forbes writer Andy Greenberg broke a pair of dramatic stories on Cody Wilson’s quest to build an untraceable plastic gun using commercially available 3D-printing technology. First, Greenberg publishedexclusive photos of the completed firearm, then he reported on a successful test firing of a live .380 cartridge.

Although the technology is still in its infancy, Wilson’s innovation has already sparked heated debate. Some gun rights advocates (including Wilson) argue this means current gun laws will soon be obsolete. They welcome the fact that home hobbyists may soon be able to build functioning firearms without any background check or government record. Others are alarmed, concerned that this would enable criminals to more easily obtain firearms. Congressman Steve Israel has already stated his intent to modify current laws to ban such guns.

However, Congressman Israel may be too late. Once thousands of motivated hobbyists start downloading open source gun designs and posting their refinements, we’ll likely see rapid technical advances. But Cody Wilson’s real impact on America may not be technological but political — and in a good way.

Government will likely be unable to suppress this application of 3D-printing technology. True, they could attempt to outlaw the possession of such untraceable guns, but that would be as ineffective as current laws banning the possession of marijuana. Similarly, the government could attempt to require 3D-printers be installed with special software that only allows them to build objects from data files certified as “approved” by the authorities. But given how quickly hackers routinely “jailbreak” software restrictions on smartphones, the same would likely happen to software restrictions on 3D-printers. In other words, the genie is probably already out of the bottle.

Nonetheless, how likely is an attempted government crackdown on 3D-printed guns? One clue comes from ATF agent Charles Houser, head of their National Tracing Center Division. In a recent CNBC interview, Houser stated that there was no “legitimate purpose” to making an untraceable gun and that seeking to build one indicated “criminal intent.”

However, current law already allows home hobbyists to build their own firearms provided they are for personal use only (and not for sale). Such guns are already “untraceable.” 3D-printing doesn’t change that basic fact — it merely allows a wider range of hobbyists without specialized machine shop skills to do what’s already legal.

The unease expressed over 3D-printed guns mirrors similar unease following the adoption of widespread cryptography for secure communications. Some opponents were concerned that ordinary Americans could use this technology to engage in criminal activities undetected by the government. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration pushed for the adoption of hardware backdoors to allow government to read otherwise secure e-mail as it saw fit. Even now, the FBI continues to seek wider powers to monitor citizens’ electronic communications on the grounds it’s necessary to stop terrorism.

Yes, the government has a legitimate role in stopping the misuse of cryptography for evil purposes, such as terrorist plots or the dissemination of digital contraband such as child pornography or pirated software. But that should not be a pretext for giving the government excessive power over innocuous private communications.

Similarly, government has a legitimate role in stopping gun crime. But this should not be a pretext for restricting 3D-printing technology.

Furthermore, University of Chicago professor (and co-author of the bestsellerFreakonomics) Steve Levitt has noted that most proposed gun controls have minimal impact on gun crime. One of the few ideas that does work is enhanced prison sentences for crimes committed with a gun. According to Levitt, the gun laws that work are ones “where you’re not tying it to the gun itself, you’re tying it to the use of guns that you don’t want.” This makes perfect sense. The government should not punish gun ownership by responsible adults, nor legitimate sporting or self-defense uses. Instead, the government should punish the misuse of a gun by criminals.

Citizens do not have a general obligation to communicate with others in a way that the government can readily understand. An honest person can have many legitimate personal or business reasons for private communications. Most Americans recognize this is not a sign of “criminal intent.” If the government has a specific need to monitor someone’s private electronic communications, the burden of proof should be on them to demonstrate their need for a warrant for appropriate wiretapping. Otherwise, anyone using cryptography should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Similarly, honest citizens should not have a general obligation to disclose to the government what firearms they’ve built or bought, provided they are for honest purposes. An honest person may wish to keep this information private to avoid becoming the target of thieves or unwanted political attacks. A desire for private firearms ownership is not proof of “criminal intent.” And if the government has a specific concern that someone is planning a crime with a gun (or any other tool), the burden of proof should be on the government prior to any search or other invasion of his privacy. Otherwise, anyone owning an “untraceable” 3D-printed gun should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Wilson’s innovation could thus spark a much-needed re-examination of American gun laws, including the current paradigm of imposing ever-increasing restrictions on millions of honest gun owners in an attempt to stop relatively fewer bad guys from committing gun crimes. By making it harder (if not nearly impossible) for the government to regulate gun possession and transfers, his development could move the government to instead (properly) focus its efforts on punishing gun misuse.

That is why I’m encouraged by the development of 3D-printed guns. Not because I want bad guys committing more gun crimes. But because I hope it sparks some vigorous discussions on deeper themes such as “innocent until proven guilty” and the proper scope of government. If enough people start debating these questions, Cody Wilson will have done America a real service.

via  Forbes