quote:

If there was no DNA on the gun except the cops, which you have also stated, the test was wrong.
There could not have been only his DNA on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If there was no DNA on the gun except the cops, which you have also stated, the test was wrong.
There could not have been only his DNA on it.

The test was wrong! Godammit. that is the silliest thing you have ever written. You are hilariously funny. A living breathing cartoon.

DNA testing has exonerating over 160 prisoners in this country alone. Of those, 35 were on death row. If there is a close-to-universal truth it is that American jurisprudence has accepted the validity of DNA testing. But not this perverted judge who accepted the time worn lawyer trick of cutting off the expert witness's testimony with an obviously stacked question instead.

The test is not wrong, Bama boy. The reason the cop's DNA alone was on the gun is because the dead man never handled the gun. The reason why he never handled the gun was because the cop planted the gun. That would have been enough to convict the cop if he were an ordinary citizen and not a man in blue. Get-outta-jail-free-card for another white cop.

I'm done here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If there was no DNA on the gun except the cops, which you have also stated, the test was wrong.
There could not have been only his DNA on it.

The test was wrong! Godammit. that is the silliest thing you have ever written. You are hilariously funny. A living breathing cartoon.

DNA testing has exonerating over 160 prisoners in this country alone. Of those, 35 were on death row. If there is a close-to-universal truth it is that American jurisprudence has accepted the validity of DNA testing. But not this perverted judge who accepted the time worn lawyer trick of cutting off the expert witness's testimony with an obviously stacked question instead.

The test is not wrong, Bama boy. The reason the cop's DNA alone was on the gun is because the dead man never handled the gun. The reason why he never handled the gun was because the cop planted the gun. That would have been enough to convict the cop if he were an ordinary citizen and not a man in blue. Get-outta-jail-free-card for another white cop.

I'm done here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

an untrue statement maliciously uttered that damages someone's reputation. without getting too technical one way or the other, I can see how it applies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Bama the evidence on the so called planted gun is laid out in the Judges decision. Criminals are not stupid... they make sure they have a clean gun... the officers DNA was on the gun because according to police procedure he unloaded it and secured it. Remember he was going for the gun... he didn't get it. The read really is interesting and laid out in an orderly intelligent manner... People just have to read it before they make these irresponsible claims.

Butch

So this guy is being chased through city streets at 87 mph and he has time to clean all his DNA from the gun? It is simply amazing the lengths at which you will go to torture the story so that it comes out in favor of the police.

No body said he cleaned it while he was being chased.

Ah, It is a self-cleaning gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Bama the evidence on the so called planted gun is laid out in the Judges decision. Criminals are not stupid... they make sure they have a clean gun... the officers DNA was on the gun because according to police procedure he unloaded it and secured it. Remember he was going for the gun... he didn't get it. The read really is interesting and laid out in an orderly intelligent manner... People just have to read it before they make these irresponsible claims.

Butch

So this guy is being chased through city streets at 87 mph and he has time to clean all his DNA from the gun? It is simply amazing the lengths at which you will go to torture the story so that it comes out in favor of the police.

No body said he cleaned it while he was being chased.

Ah, It is a self-cleaning gun.

I guess it never occurred to you that he might have cleaned it before he ran into the cops. As to your comment on my always trying to make the cop out to be the good guy, I can only surmise you are thinking of one of the many fantasy voices you hear and often confuse with the real ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Most of the gun owners I know go home after shooting it on the range and thoroughly clean it inside and out.
Since the gun owner in this case was reaching for his gun but hadn't yet grabbed it, I would be surprised if there WAS any DNA except the cop's since he picked it up to unload and secure it. No perp DNA is entirely expectable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

At one point in my life I worked as a personal bodyguard. I carried three weapons on my person most of that time, and if a cop had found them it's unlikely that they would have gotten my fingerprints, much less my DNA off any of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Bama...again in the report... The expert witness on DNA testified that in 2011 it was rare to find DNA on weapons. They also testified that the lack of DNA did not prove a person had not touched the gun... In fact another police officer touched the gun and his DNA did not show up either.

I am quite familiar with police officers in my city... They tell me that criminals often try to keep a clean gun when possible... That way if they are pulled over they could deny the weapon was theirs if it were to be proven to be stolen or used in a crime.. Either way lack of DNA will not prove who did not touch a weapon.

Butch