Breaking: North Charleston cop about to go free!!!

[ClosedCaption]

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun? - Quora

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....Savage talks all about the 'twice' Scott tries to shoot Slager with the taser when talking to the press. Only 4 days ago. For crying out loud, its in your OP.

Yet in court, where he actually has back his claims with evidence......nothing. Not the slightest mention.

You can't be that gullible.

Are you a negro?

Oh, another racist pig. Fuck off.

I may indeed be a racist pig. But I'll always be White and I'll always have an IQ above 120. Whereas our friend will always be a negro with an IQ below 90.
You can't fix stupid and our friend is doing a great job proving it.

Wow. Even for a StromFront reject, you don't seem to get the idea of 'averages'.

From The NYT:
The Black-White Test Score Gap
Goggle up hundreds of scientific studies which PROVE negroes have generally lower IQs than Whites.
Don't like the Facts? Kiss my snow White ass.

And where, pray tell, does it state that a black person can never have an IQ above 90?

For someone who claims to have an IQ above 120, you seem helplessly confused by the concept of 'averages'.

Do tell, StormFront. I mean, if you can spare the time before the Clan rally.

 

[Skylar]

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun? - Quora

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

 

[bucs90]

Yes. They are that dumb. They think he's gonna lay it all out in a PRE TRIAL hearing....and give the prosecution 10 months to prep for it.

It would be like the Patriots faxing their entire playbook to all 31 opposing teams in June.

Laughing.....Savage talks all about the 'twice' Scott tries to shoot Slager with the taser when talking to the press. Only 4 days ago. For crying out loud, its in your OP.

Yet in court, where he actually has back his claims with evidence......nothing. Not the slightest mention.

You can't be that gullible.

He's one of the top lawyers in the entire South. And you...some random USMB idiot.... think you are catching his slip ups haha!! He did both...intentionally.

Laughing....then why did you story have to change for at third time? First you said it wasn't relevant, then you said it was to keep the information from the prosecution, now its 'intentional'.

All Savage managed to factually establish....is that he can't back up the shit he talks to the press when he's in court. As Savage's narrative totally changed when he was talking to a judge rather than when he was talking to a reporter.

God damn you're stupid. I'll slow it down:
- It's not relevant to the BOND HEARING per SC laws governing bond consideration factors

Then why did Savage spend 20 minutes waxing poetic about all the injuries Slager incurred and all the attacks made against him.....if attacks made against Slager weren't relevant to the bond hearing?

Why did Savage bring up the Taser....if the Taser wasn't relevant to the bond hearing?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Try again.

- Because...doing so would allow cross examination by prosecutor

Sigh.....there were no witnesses. Even Slager didn't testify at the bond hearing. There's no one to cross examine. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Try again.

In SC law opposing attorneys can challenge and question each other at bond hearings.

He didn't provide the EVIDENCE you asked for. He mentions a taser....because they did fight over it. Thats not questioned by the solicitor by the way...shes accepted the fight haopened. But not the pointing and pulling the trigger that Scott did.

It is entertaining...however...watching you try to pick apart the public statements of one of the best attorneys in the Southeast.

 

[bucs90]

http://www.quora.com/Can-a-fingerprint-be-lifted-off-a-Glock-40-gun

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

Well....we'd have to meet somewhere and show you. Touch a sandpaperish surface. Then try to lift a print off it. You cant. That's basic police academy shit. Not some scientific breakthrough. Touch a rock. Can you fingerprint it? Carpet? A couch? No. The dumbest police recruit learns that Day 1 in evidence class at the academy.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....Savage talks all about the 'twice' Scott tries to shoot Slager with the taser when talking to the press. Only 4 days ago. For crying out loud, its in your OP.

Yet in court, where he actually has back his claims with evidence......nothing. Not the slightest mention.

You can't be that gullible.

He's one of the top lawyers in the entire South. And you...some random USMB idiot.... think you are catching his slip ups haha!! He did both...intentionally.

Laughing....then why did you story have to change for at third time? First you said it wasn't relevant, then you said it was to keep the information from the prosecution, now its 'intentional'.

All Savage managed to factually establish....is that he can't back up the shit he talks to the press when he's in court. As Savage's narrative totally changed when he was talking to a judge rather than when he was talking to a reporter.

God damn you're stupid. I'll slow it down:
- It's not relevant to the BOND HEARING per SC laws governing bond consideration factors

Then why did Savage spend 20 minutes waxing poetic about all the injuries Slager incurred and all the attacks made against him.....if attacks made against Slager weren't relevant to the bond hearing?

Why did Savage bring up the Taser....if the Taser wasn't relevant to the bond hearing?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Try again.

- Because...doing so would allow cross examination by prosecutor

Sigh.....there were no witnesses. Even Slager didn't testify at the bond hearing. There's no one to cross examine. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Try again.

In SC law opposing attorneys can challenge and question each other at bond hearings.

Show me the SC law that states that lawyers are required to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

Remember, you just make shit up all the time. So you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless gibberish. Show us the law, or admit you have no idea what you' re talking about.

And of course, why did Savage babble on for 20 minutes about injuries incurred by Slager and attacks against Slager if injuries and attacks were irrelevant to the hearing?

That's the 4th time I've asked? 5th? Keep running.

He didn't provide the EVIDENCE you asked for. He mentions a taser....because they did fight over it.

Then why no mention of the claim he made to the press that Scott attempted to use the weapon against Slager twice?

The only thing that Savage proved....is when he has to back his claims with evidence, his story changes.

 

[bucs90]

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun? - Quora

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun? - Quora

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well....we'd have to meet somewhere and show you.

Yeah, that or you can like....Link to something that supports your malarky....OR meet in person so he can feel a gun with you as proof or something

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

Difficult Surfaces? Wheres the search for the glock tho?

Bucs will lie like hell rather than admit hes wrong

 

[Skylar]

http://www.quora.com/Can-a-fingerprint-be-lifted-off-a-Glock-40-gun

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

Well....we'd have to meet somewhere and show you. Touch a sandpaperish surface. Then try to lift a print off it. You cant. That's basic police academy shit. Not some scientific breakthrough. Touch a rock. Can you fingerprint it? Carpet? A couch? No. The dumbest police recruit learns that Day 1 in evidence class at the academy.

Translation: you've got jack shit. You can't back anything you've said. And we're expected to 'take your word for it.'

Sorry, chum.....but you're nobody. You citing yourself isn't evidence. You can't get around that. And you can't back up your claims.

You know it. I know it. And now so does everyone else.

 

[bucs90]

He's one of the top lawyers in the entire South. And you...some random USMB idiot.... think you are catching his slip ups haha!! He did both...intentionally.

Laughing....then why did you story have to change for at third time? First you said it wasn't relevant, then you said it was to keep the information from the prosecution, now its 'intentional'.

All Savage managed to factually establish....is that he can't back up the shit he talks to the press when he's in court. As Savage's narrative totally changed when he was talking to a judge rather than when he was talking to a reporter.

God damn you're stupid. I'll slow it down:
- It's not relevant to the BOND HEARING per SC laws governing bond consideration factors

Then why did Savage spend 20 minutes waxing poetic about all the injuries Slager incurred and all the attacks made against him.....if attacks made against Slager weren't relevant to the bond hearing?

Why did Savage bring up the Taser....if the Taser wasn't relevant to the bond hearing?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Try again.

- Because...doing so would allow cross examination by prosecutor

Sigh.....there were no witnesses. Even Slager didn't testify at the bond hearing. There's no one to cross examine. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Try again.

In SC law opposing attorneys can challenge and question each other at bond hearings.

Show me the SC law that states that lawyers are required to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

Remember, you just make shit up all the time. So you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless gibberish. Show us the law, or admit you have no idea what you' re talking about.

And of course, why did Savage babble on for 20 minutes about injuries incurred by Slager and attacks against Slager if injuries and attacks were irrelevant to the hearing?

That's the 4th time I've asked? 5th? Keep running.

He didn't provide the EVIDENCE you asked for. He mentions a taser....because they did fight over it.

Then why no mention of the claim he made to the press that Scott attempted to use the weapon against Slager twice?

The only thing that Savage proved....is when he has to back his claims with evidence, his story changes.

The procedural law? Ok...I'll find it. This will be fun.

Umm....wasn't this whole thing over Savage not mentioning Scott trying to pull the trigger of the taser in the hearing? I agree...he didnt. That part isn't relevant...for a pre trial hearing. Honestly...much of what he said wasnt. But...the press can't ask for evidence of that. The judge...and solicitor...can. Which is why he didn't present it in court....yet. You'd be a horrible trial lawyer.

 

[Skylar]

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun? - Quora

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun? - Quora

Can a fingerprint be lifted off a Glock .40 gun?

this seemed like a rather odd question. after all, why wouldn't you be able to lift a fingerprint from a gun? what would be so special about that particular gun that would make it difficult.

according to my digging, it's not traditional fingerprinting that's difficult but rather ballistic fingerprinting (matching bullets to guns based on marks left on them from the barrel) that is difficult for this type of gun. it makes me wonder if perhaps the question might have been the result of a misunderstanding.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

Okay, disphit.....quote the parts of your source that says that you can't pull a fingerprint from a taser or a glock.

With links to the exact quotes. .

Laughing.....you never even read the link you just offered us, did you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bucs: You have to meet with me and we can rub guns....Thats what we used to call it in the locker room

 

[bucs90]

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

Difficult Surfaces? Wheres the search for the glock tho?

Bucs will lie like hell rather than admit hes wrong

Um....hey idiot...a gun grip is a "difficult surface". See...Glock Inc....in an attempt to make a quality product...makes their grips surface rough textured. Kinda like sandpaper or sneaker shoe sole designs. That way...in a fight the gun won't slip. And sweat or blood won't make it slip. Glock is an excellent gun maker for many reasons and this is one.

So...now I suppose I'm gonna have to PROVE that Glock grips are rough surfaces??

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....then why did you story have to change for at third time? First you said it wasn't relevant, then you said it was to keep the information from the prosecution, now its 'intentional'.

All Savage managed to factually establish....is that he can't back up the shit he talks to the press when he's in court. As Savage's narrative totally changed when he was talking to a judge rather than when he was talking to a reporter.

God damn you're stupid. I'll slow it down:
- It's not relevant to the BOND HEARING per SC laws governing bond consideration factors

Then why did Savage spend 20 minutes waxing poetic about all the injuries Slager incurred and all the attacks made against him.....if attacks made against Slager weren't relevant to the bond hearing?

Why did Savage bring up the Taser....if the Taser wasn't relevant to the bond hearing?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Try again.

- Because...doing so would allow cross examination by prosecutor

Sigh.....there were no witnesses. Even Slager didn't testify at the bond hearing. There's no one to cross examine. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Try again.

In SC law opposing attorneys can challenge and question each other at bond hearings.

Show me the SC law that states that lawyers are required to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

Remember, you just make shit up all the time. So you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless gibberish. Show us the law, or admit you have no idea what you' re talking about.

And of course, why did Savage babble on for 20 minutes about injuries incurred by Slager and attacks against Slager if injuries and attacks were irrelevant to the hearing?

That's the 4th time I've asked? 5th? Keep running.

He didn't provide the EVIDENCE you asked for. He mentions a taser....because they did fight over it.

Then why no mention of the claim he made to the press that Scott attempted to use the weapon against Slager twice?

The only thing that Savage proved....is when he has to back his claims with evidence, his story changes.

The procedural law? Ok...I'll find it. This will be fun.

Umm....wasn't this whole thing over Savage not mentioning Scott trying to pull the trigger of the taser in the hearing? I agree...he didnt. That part isn't relevant...for a pre trial hearing.

Why is it not relevant? Remember, Savage went on for 20 minutes about the taser, the attacks against Slager, the injuries slager incurred.

But suddenly the taser and attacks against Slager aren't relevant?

Um, how does that work exactly? Because it sounds to me like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[bucs90]

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Ah...yes...a different type of fingerprinting.

I'm talking a literal fingerprint....from the grip surface of these:
glock rough gun grip - Google Search


There's a reason why cops fingerprint test the magazine bullets in a gun. They're encased in SMOOTH brass shells. Which can be fingerprinted. As opposed to the sand paperish grip of the gun. Which is why...they DNA test the gun and taser....because...well....I'm gonna charge tuition to you idiots here shortly.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

Okay, disphit.....quote the parts of your source that says that you can't pull a fingerprint from a taser or a glock.

With links to the exact quotes. .

Laughing.....you never even read the link you just offered us, did you?

It speaks of "rough surfaces". See my other response on how Glock Inc molds their grips (hint: they aren't smooth!!).

 

[Skylar]

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

Difficult Surfaces? Wheres the search for the glock tho?

Bucs will lie like hell rather than admit hes wrong

Um....hey idiot...a gun grip is a "difficult surface".

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me where in your source it says that fingerprints can't be pulled from a taser or a glock.

Unless you're talking out of your ass....in which case, you'll once again give us sniveling excuses for why you can't back up your claims. Or even quote the relevant passage of your own source.

You didn't even read the source, did you?

 

[Skylar]

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Four the 4th time, you citing you means nothing. Prove that no fingerprints can be pulled from the Glock. Prove that no finger prints can be pulled from the Taser. Prove that none of Slager's prints were pulled from the Glock.

You have nothing....just you 'saying' it must be so. And you're nobody.

He cant thats why he stays saying just general things like "the glock surface is LIKE sandpaper" Then tells you that you cant pull fingerprints from sandpaper...which is NOT what is on the Glock at all. He likes to mix and match to make his logic seem logical.

Ask him for proof tho? And he'll talk and talk and talk for 10 pages and never able to back it up

Buc's arguments always degenerate into the same meaningless word salad: Buc citing Buc as an expert on any topic he chooses to discuss.

Alas, his source sucks.

Ok moron. Here. Even forensics experts are still trying to find ways to fingerprint rough surfaces:

Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

I want your tuition sent in the mail.....cash only.

Okay, disphit.....quote the parts of your source that says that you can't pull a fingerprint from a taser or a glock.

With links to the exact quotes. .

Laughing.....you never even read the link you just offered us, did you?

It speaks of "rough surfaces". See my other response on how Glock Inc molds their grips (hint: they aren't smooth!!).

For the third time......quote from your sources that affirms that you can't pull a print from a glock or a taser.

Either your source says this, or it doesn't. From all the snivelling excuses you're giving on why you can't offer the quote....things don't look good for you.

You never even read your source.

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for the SC law that states that lawyers are required to answer each other's questions in a bond hearing.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[bucs90]

God damn you're stupid. I'll slow it down:
- It's not relevant to the BOND HEARING per SC laws governing bond consideration factors

Then why did Savage spend 20 minutes waxing poetic about all the injuries Slager incurred and all the attacks made against him.....if attacks made against Slager weren't relevant to the bond hearing?

Why did Savage bring up the Taser....if the Taser wasn't relevant to the bond hearing?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Try again.

- Because...doing so would allow cross examination by prosecutor

Sigh.....there were no witnesses. Even Slager didn't testify at the bond hearing. There's no one to cross examine. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Try again.

In SC law opposing attorneys can challenge and question each other at bond hearings.

Show me the SC law that states that lawyers are required to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

Remember, you just make shit up all the time. So you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless gibberish. Show us the law, or admit you have no idea what you' re talking about.

And of course, why did Savage babble on for 20 minutes about injuries incurred by Slager and attacks against Slager if injuries and attacks were irrelevant to the hearing?

That's the 4th time I've asked? 5th? Keep running.

He didn't provide the EVIDENCE you asked for. He mentions a taser....because they did fight over it.

Then why no mention of the claim he made to the press that Scott attempted to use the weapon against Slager twice?

The only thing that Savage proved....is when he has to back his claims with evidence, his story changes.

The procedural law? Ok...I'll find it. This will be fun.

Umm....wasn't this whole thing over Savage not mentioning Scott trying to pull the trigger of the taser in the hearing? I agree...he didnt. That part isn't relevant...for a pre trial hearing.

Why is it not relevant? Remember, Savage went on for 20 minutes about the taser, the attacks against Slager, the injuries slager incurred.

But suddenly the taser and attacks against Slager aren't relevant?

Um, how does that work exactly? Because it sounds to me like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Most of that wasn't relevant either. SC law says 4 factors are relevant in a BOND hearing: Charge. Flight risk. Gang affiliate. Rap sheet. www.postandcourier.com lays all that out.

So why speak on all that...but not mention the crucial part about Scott pulling the trigger as he pointed it at Slager? Because the solicitor has conceded all the other has happened already. But it the trigger part. And if he brings it up...she can challenge it in bond court. Which is why he did it in the press...not in court.

He's the best in the South. He's playing you...and the solicitor....like a fiddle.