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

[bucs90]

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.

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.

So you are going to argue that "rough surfaces" does NOT include gun grips? The source isn't gonna list ALL items considered rough. I guess we need to PROVE that sandpaper and rocks are rough surfaces too....because the link didn't mention them.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

If attacks against Slager and Slager's injuries are irrelevant to the bond hearing, why did Savage spend 20 minutes talking about attacks against Slager and Slager's injuries?

The taser and the attacks against Slager can't be relevant AND irrelevant at the same time.

Savage changed his story when he had to back his claims. With one story for the press. And another for the judge. That doesn't bode well for Slager. Or for Savage's case.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

So you are going to argue that "rough surfaces" does NOT include gun grips? The source isn't gonna list ALL items considered rough. I guess we need to PROVE that sandpaper and rocks are rough surfaces too....because the link didn't mention them.

I'm going to do what I've done 4 times now: Ask you to QUOTE your source indicating that prints can't be lifted from a glock or a taser.

You can't. Your only source is you. You're nobody. You're done.

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

 

[bucs90]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

Oh ok....sure. South Carolina Bench Book Governing Bail Proceedings:
South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges - Criminal Section

Happy reading fella!!

In short...both sides can present evidence in bond bearings. And both sides can dispute it. But only if it's presented. Which is why Savage didn't present everything....because he's not showing his whole hand at a damn pretrial bond hearing.

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

Oh ok....sure. South Carolina Bench Book Governing Bail Proceedings:
South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges - Criminal Section

Happy reading fella!!

Quote your source. Show us the law that says that SC lawyers have to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

You've obviously never read your link. You don't have any such quote. You obviously can't back your claim.

Like your laughably failure with your 'difficult failures' link, you can't actually quote your source saying what you do.

Try again.

 

[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.

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.

So you are going to argue that "rough surfaces" does NOT include gun grips? The source isn't gonna list ALL items considered rough. I guess we need to PROVE that sandpaper and rocks are rough surfaces too....because the link didn't mention them.

I'm going to do what I've done 4 times now: Ask you to QUOTE your source indicating that prints can't be lifted from a glock or a taser.

You can't. Your only source is you. You're nobody. You're done.

Glock grips are a rough surface. Forensics experts nationwide still are seeking ways to fingerprint rough surfaces.

You lost on this one. It's okay bro. It happens.

 

[bucs90]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

Oh ok....sure. South Carolina Bench Book Governing Bail Proceedings:
South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges - Criminal Section

Happy reading fella!!

Quote your source. Show us the law that says that SC lawyers have to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

You've obviously never read your link. You don't have any such quote. You obviously can't back your claim.

Like your laughably failure with your 'difficult failures' link, you can't actually quote your source saying what you do.

Try again.

Already did. You didn't read it all obviously. In SC bond hearings allow opposing sides to present evidence...and in turn...dispute it. Which is why Savage didn't show his whole hand.

Gun grips. SC procedural law. You lost bad on this.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So you are going to argue that "rough surfaces" does NOT include gun grips? The source isn't gonna list ALL items considered rough. I guess we need to PROVE that sandpaper and rocks are rough surfaces too....because the link didn't mention them.

I'm going to do what I've done 4 times now: Ask you to QUOTE your source indicating that prints can't be lifted from a glock or a taser.

You can't. Your only source is you. You're nobody. You're done.

Glock grips are a rough surface. Forensics experts nationwide still are seeking ways to fingerprint rough surfaces.

Then its going to be remarkably easy for you to quote your source saying that you can't pull a fingerprint from a glock or a taser.

Yet oddly, you don't quote your source. You quote yourself.

You're nobody. You citing you isn't evidence of jack shit. See how that works?

\
You lost on this one. It's okay bro. It happens.

And now the summary declarations of victory....despite the fact that you have yet to present a thing to back up your claims.

I forgot you do that. Is there anything to you but you quoiting yourself?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bucs argues that boats can fly.

Bucs: Boats can fly
Everyone else: Prove it
Bucs: Well things that fly have to be aerodynamic. Boats are aerodynamic. Are you saying they arent?
Everyone else: Just prove that boats can fly
Bucs: I did! In order to fly something has to reduce wind resistance. Boats are designed to do that. See?

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

Oh ok....sure. South Carolina Bench Book Governing Bail Proceedings:
South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges - Criminal Section

Happy reading fella!!

Quote your source. Show us the law that says that SC lawyers have to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

You've obviously never read your link. You don't have any such quote. You obviously can't back your claim.

Like your laughably failure with your 'difficult failures' link, you can't actually quote your source saying what you do.

Try again.

Already did. You didn't read it all obviously. In SC bond hearings allow opposing sides to present evidence...and in turn...dispute it. Which is why Savage didn't show his whole hand.

Gun grips. SC procedural law. You lost bad on this.

Nope. You didn't offer a single quote. You offered a link you've never read. Quote the SC law that states that attorney's have to answer each other's questions at a bond hearing.

If you had the quote, you would have offered it. You didn't....because you don't.

Keep running.

 

[bucs90]

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.

So you are going to argue that "rough surfaces" does NOT include gun grips? The source isn't gonna list ALL items considered rough. I guess we need to PROVE that sandpaper and rocks are rough surfaces too....because the link didn't mention them.

I'm going to do what I've done 4 times now: Ask you to QUOTE your source indicating that prints can't be lifted from a glock or a taser.

You can't. Your only source is you. You're nobody. You're done.

Glock grips are a rough surface. Forensics experts nationwide still are seeking ways to fingerprint rough surfaces.

Then its going to be remarkably easy for you to quote your source saying that you can't pull a fingerprint from a glock or a taser.

Yet oddly, you don't quote your source. You quote yourself.

You're nobody. You citing you isn't evidence of jack shit. See how that works?

\
You lost on this one. It's okay bro. It happens.

And now the summary declarations of victory....despite the fact that you have yet to present at thing to back up your claims.

I forgot you do that. Is there anything to you but you quoiting yourself?

You want me to show a quote that a Glock grip is a "rough surface"? You ever held a gun? Any modern pistol? You're grasping at straws now.

OH GUESS WHAT? Out of curiosity...I looked to see if only SC allows lawyers to question each other at bond hearings. Not only do they...but even FEDERAL court allows cross examination in bond hearings!!
Detention hearing, how to get bond in federal criminal court, Bail federal court, post bond, bail, appeal denial of bond or bail in Federal court, Florida

Now I'm just rubbing it in. Ouch.

Oh...and breaking news....gun grips aren't smooth!

 

[bucs90]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

Oh ok....sure. South Carolina Bench Book Governing Bail Proceedings:
South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges - Criminal Section

Happy reading fella!!

Quote your source. Show us the law that says that SC lawyers have to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

You've obviously never read your link. You don't have any such quote. You obviously can't back your claim.

Like your laughably failure with your 'difficult failures' link, you can't actually quote your source saying what you do.

Try again.

Already did. You didn't read it all obviously. In SC bond hearings allow opposing sides to present evidence...and in turn...dispute it. Which is why Savage didn't show his whole hand.

Gun grips. SC procedural law. You lost bad on this.

Nope. You didn't offer a single quote. You offered a link you've never read. Quote the SC law that states that attorney's have to answer each other's questions at a bond hearing.

If you had the quote, you would have offered it. You didn't....because you don't.

Keep running.

I offered the law. You didn't like it. Sorry.

Hey....even federal court allows cross examination at bond hearing!! Ooops!
Detention hearing, how to get bond in federal criminal court, Bail federal court, post bond, bail, appeal denial of bond or bail in Federal court, Florida

 

[bucs90]

Bucs argues that boats can fly.

Bucs: Boats can fly
Everyone else: Prove it
Bucs: Well things that fly have to be aerodynamic. Boats are aerodynamic. Are you saying they arent?
Everyone else: Just prove that boats can fly
Bucs: I did! In order to fly something has to reduce wind resistance. Boats are designed to do that. See?

Do Glock pistols have rough or smooth grip surfaces?

 

[Skylar]

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.

So you are going to argue that "rough surfaces" does NOT include gun grips? The source isn't gonna list ALL items considered rough. I guess we need to PROVE that sandpaper and rocks are rough surfaces too....because the link didn't mention them.

I'm going to do what I've done 4 times now: Ask you to QUOTE your source indicating that prints can't be lifted from a glock or a taser.

You can't. Your only source is you. You're nobody. You're done.

Glock grips are a rough surface. Forensics experts nationwide still are seeking ways to fingerprint rough surfaces.

Then its going to be remarkably easy for you to quote your source saying that you can't pull a fingerprint from a glock or a taser.

Yet oddly, you don't quote your source. You quote yourself.

You're nobody. You citing you isn't evidence of jack shit. See how that works?

\
You lost on this one. It's okay bro. It happens.

And now the summary declarations of victory....despite the fact that you have yet to present at thing to back up your claims.

I forgot you do that. Is there anything to you but you quoiting yourself?

You want me to show a quote that a Glock grip is a "rough surface"? You ever held a gun? Any modern pistol? You're grasping at straws now.

I want you to quote your source saying that you can't lift prints from a glock or a taser.

And your failure to do so, or quote anything other than yourself....has been spectacular.

OH GUESS WHAT? Out of curiosity...I looked to see if only SC allows lawyers to question each other at bond hearings. Not only do they...but even FEDERAL court allows cross examination in bond hearings!!
Detention hearing, how to get bond in federal criminal court, Bail federal court, post bond, bail, appeal denial of bond or bail in Federal court, Florida

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote the SC law stating that lawyers must answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

Yet, exactly as I told you you would, you've only quoted yourself on that too. If you had a quote of the SC law saying what you did....you'd have quoted it. You have offered no such quote of SC.....because you have nothing.

Instead, we only get snivelling excuses. You're nothing if not predictable.

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to show us the SC law that requires that lawyers have to answer each other's question in a bond hearing.

I'll quit asking when you admit you can't back that claim up either. But not until.

Oh ok....sure. South Carolina Bench Book Governing Bail Proceedings:
South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges - Criminal Section

Happy reading fella!!

Quote your source. Show us the law that says that SC lawyers have to answer each other's questions during a bond hearing.

You've obviously never read your link. You don't have any such quote. You obviously can't back your claim.

Like your laughably failure with your 'difficult failures' link, you can't actually quote your source saying what you do.

Try again.

Already did. You didn't read it all obviously. In SC bond hearings allow opposing sides to present evidence...and in turn...dispute it. Which is why Savage didn't show his whole hand.

Gun grips. SC procedural law. You lost bad on this.

Nope. You didn't offer a single quote. You offered a link you've never read. Quote the SC law that states that attorney's have to answer each other's questions at a bond hearing.

If you had the quote, you would have offered it. You didn't....because you don't.

Keep running.

I offered the law. You didn't like it. Sorry.

Prove that the link includes the citation you claim it does.

You can't. You haven't cited SC law stating that lawyers must answer each other's questions in a bond hearing. You have only quoted yourself.

And you're nobody. See how this works?

 

[Skylar]

Bucs argues that boats can fly.

Bucs: Boats can fly
Everyone else: Prove it
Bucs: Well things that fly have to be aerodynamic. Boats are aerodynamic. Are you saying they arent?
Everyone else: Just prove that boats can fly
Bucs: I did! In order to fly something has to reduce wind resistance. Boats are designed to do that. See?

Do Glock pistols have rough or smooth grip surfaces?

You've claimed that fingerprints can't be lifted from a glock or a taser.

Prove it. You can't. You're done.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bucs argues that boats can fly.

Bucs: Boats can fly
Everyone else: Prove it
Bucs: Well things that fly have to be aerodynamic. Boats are aerodynamic. Are you saying they arent?
Everyone else: Just prove that boats can fly
Bucs: I did! In order to fly something has to reduce wind resistance. Boats are designed to do that. See?

Do Glock pistols have rough or smooth grip surfaces?

You have yet to show that a fingerprint cannot be taken from a glock (rough and smooth have no bearing here). Once you do that then your arguement holds weight, but the bait and switch between what is rough or not has nothing to do with it unless you can show that fingerprints cannot be taken from a glock. Speaking about rough doesnt support your assertion.

But have fun playing with everyone else. My signature shows you'll say anything and use any excuse

 

[bucs90]

Sorry Skylar. I posted the book governing bond hearings. You can read it. Federal courts allow it. I bet all 50 states do...because if the Feds do...it's obviously Constitutional. There's even an Amendment governing bail.

And you won't see forensics experts specifying particular gun grips. Because they're all rough surfaces. Common knowledge. Doesn't matter what the rough surface is ATTACHED to.

Go to my new thread regarding Glock grips. You'll see.