Tool marks and casings

Idk that sounds costly I'm not looking to see my funs cost more money cause of a small number of murders could be solved easier.

>microstamping or firearm fingerprinting needs to become law.
It is already law in California. The fact that it's impossible to do with modern technology and useless once implemented in the far flung future stopped nobody.

In the episode of tales of the gun it went like this
>Gangdude kills gangdude with some 9mm cops get casing from by the body
>Gangdude gets pulled over gun is seized
>Gun gets fired at a lab and the tool marks match casing from murder scene
>Gangdude gets charged with murder
Imo that doesn't prove he killed the guy to me only proves the gun is likely the murder weapon what if it got sold or traded or stolen after the crime.

No, I've just watched a fuckload of 'unsolved mysteries'. "cold case files', and the like.

that idea is silly as fuck because it's so easy to circumvent. nevermind the fact you can sand off or deform markings on the casings or the gun or reload brass; the age-old method of get-rid-of-the-weapon always works.

Yeah, thats pretty much it.

>only proves the gun is likely the murder weapon what if it got sold or traded or stolen after the crime.
Agreed, and that is what court is for. Can the gangdude explain how it is that he's in posession of what seems to be a murder weapon.

Or just collect brass at the range and make detectives have to decide between 80 different suspects

It also doesn't rule out any other firearm made on the same equipment by the same tool making the same tool marks. When the tool is the same, expecting different tool marks is kind of silly.

>mentioned tool marks and casings in the crime solving process
Fake Science.

Nah, suck my cock

>Nah, suck my cock
Dude, read what he said. He'd love to. Why would you reward him?

I’m a Certified Forensic Investigator.

For OP.
Sure you can go to the range and drop some cases at your crime scene.
Make sure the cases you use came the the same gun.
And make sure the cases you use are the ame caliber as what you are shooting,
It would be funny if you dropped 9mm brass and used a .40 in your crime.
If you normally wear size 10 shoes, you could try buying size 12 when you commit your crime.
I could go on.
But all of this proves premeditation
And premeditation will get you life without parole

Or he can guarantee overtime for you by dropping off casings from multiple guns of multiple calibers with plenty of used plastic sabot bits. It would take a crane to pull the bullshit out.

it only proves premeditation if the law catches you.

though I will agree that if you're stupid enough to drop the wrong caliber casings or to change your shoe size without changing your weight you better hope you don't get caught.

>Ballistic fingerprinting" of shell casings is a meme.

Ballistic fingerprinting works and can easily identify firearms used in various crimes.

The problem is the BrassTrax system.
The problem is with the crime guns and how they are passed to other people after a shooting.

Gang members will share crime guns, so the person who possess the firearm today may not be the person who shot up the block party 3 weeks ago.
While the police can find or identify the firearm, they have a difficult time identifying the shooter.

When a gun fires, it leaves a unique marking on the shell casing it discards. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives maintains a database of images of these markings called the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, or NIBIN. Police can enter images of shell casings found at crime scenes into the database. If investigators recover a gun but no expended shell casings, they can test fire it in a lab and create their own. A match in NIBIN can connect a gun to multiple crime scenes or a perpetrator, and possibly solve crimes.

In the Phoenix case, police said it was NIBIN that made them realize that they were dealing with a serial killer. After police arrested Cooksey on charges that he killed his mother and stepfather, they used NIBIN technology to link him to five other homicides in which they said he used two handguns. They then used other evidence, including cell phone data, surveillance footage, and DNA to bolster their cases and link him to two additional killings.

thetrace.org/rounds/nibin-ballistics-imaging-phoenix-police/

Attached: 7B3B0621-19D5-4B83-A9C7-3873023C7D71.jpg (960x720, 110K)

Or you could just use a revolver

Ballistic fingerprinting is low tier bullshit, Yes you can tell generally what the calibre and potentially even the type of firearm, but the idea that it can reliably pinpoint a specific gun has been repeatedly debunked over, and over, and over. (and over, and over, and over)

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-28 Gun Facts Ballistic Fingerprinting and Gun Control Policy.png (882x2564, 462K)

a man known as the “ruthless robber” stole money from his victims and then opened fire on them, leaving little behind but wounded bodies and ejected shell casings.

The police did not know when the emboldened man might strike again. But a week after the fourth robbery, a 9 millimeter Glock handgun discovered during an unrelated traffic stop was matched to the spent bullets through a federal ballistics database, leading detectives straight to Amin Ackridge.

Across the country, police departments are increasingly turning to the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, and its catalog of more than three million detailed images of spent shell casings. the database, also known as NIBIN, can identify whether the same gun was used in multiple shootings.

The number of matches nationwide jumped to 47,000 this fiscal year from 11,000 three years ago, the A.T.F. said in early October.

nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/bullets-police-evidence-nibin.html

Attached: 12266CB9-D5A4-4A51-B2EE-436613631F59.jpg (960x720, 104K)

Where did you get this junk from?

Let’s look at fact 3.
Because bullets are severely damaged.
This is obviously false because of pic related
And
We can all go to the berm and pick up intact bullets.

Attached: 7F200ED0-D3D1-48FE-A994-98F7F3AD407D.jpg (800x434, 22K)

I don't have the willpower to respond to your level of inept stupidity.

paratus.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Defective-Science-Dr-David-Klatzow-print-enabled-v2.pdf

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-28 Defective Science debunking the myth of ballistic fingerprinting - Paratus.png (802x1520, 1.04M)

Ballistic fingerprinting isn't intended to hone in on or find a specific gun.

It's supposed to answer the question of does casing A or Bullet B match gun C. Can it always do that? No. But it sometimes can.

It's no different than any other crime solving technique. Do we want to say that cameras are useless because sometimes they're turned off, out of focus, or have a blurry picture? Are fingerprints worthless because they can be easily wiped off or avoided with gloves? A tool does not have to be foolproof to be useful.

Yes, you can determine the calibre and sometimes even the model of gun, generally using common forensic footwork. That much is true, and I'm not arguing that.

Ballistic fingerprinting is a myth.

Ballistics solve murder after 4 decades

cnn.com/2002/US/08/03/old.murder.mystery/

I don't think hair tips have DNA evidence

Wow, basic forensic work solved a crime, great, but what actually solved the crime was testimony by a police officer.
I'm not arguing that forensics is not real, clearly, doing the real work using whatever evidence you have is how you solve crimes. I'm saying that ballistic fingerprinting is more often that not, a complete myth. On balance, ballistic fingerprinting solves 1 crime per every 2.5 million dollars spent on ballistic fingerprinting databases. It's a huge waste of money that could be done by hand as required like you would with any forensic investigation.

Neck yourself faggot

>4 decades
Well in another 40 years detectives might be able to pinpoint differences in modern production barrels. Or we can convince criminals to stick with current production Remington firearms so that there are plenty of unfinished edges to create those so called "fingerprints".

Someone that smart probably wouldn't be out committing crimes with a firearm.

well, the certainly wouldn't be getting caught, so you wouldn't know the difference.

You know that thing in CSI where they find a hair? Yeah, that's kind of that, but much worse, because loose hairs can travel so fucking far and erratically, they fly in the wind, they stick under people's shoes (intermixing with other hair and DNA), etc, etc. Just because your hair is found somewhere, it doesn't have to mean anything at all, unless it's like a fucking tuft of hair in a dead person's hands.
Going back to casings, they're small, and people often abandon them at ranges and what have you, just because you have someone's casings and put them on a crime scene, it doesn't have to amount to anything, you could outright say "Maybe someone took them from a range I went to?"

None of that is relevant, because getting into the big bullshit burger, ballistic forensics are the pseudoest of pseudo-science; you can't actually reliably match a bullet or a casing to any one individual firearm, the marks they look for are extremely likely to match thousands and thousands of other guns of the same model, because guns are made on assembly lines and in large numbers.

Doesn't matter.

>Ballistic fingerprinting works
It doesn't.

>it leaves a unique marking on the shell casing it discards
No it doesn't.

You know when Glock makes a pistol, they use the same tooling to do every same step?
Glock barrels all have the same rifling and will leave all the same marks on the same caliber projectiles, Glock slides all have the same breech faces machined in the same way and will leave the same marks on the head of the case, Glock extractors are all made on the same machines, fit in all the same ways, and will grab casings all the same ways, Glock firing pins are made on the same tooling, by the same method, and leave the same indent on a primer.

Nice anecdote, shitdick.

Whoop-de-doo, you proved that suspect A owns gun B, but since millions of people also own gun B, what the fuck does that establish?

>Are fingerprints worthless because they can be easily wiped off or avoided with gloves?
No, but they're not as failproof as you're led to believe, as not only is it plausible for two completely different persons to have near identical fingerprints, it's fully plausible that they can be distorted, partial, or otherwise not be correctly studied.

A fingerprint can be an important piece of evidence, but it can plausibly mean nothing at all.

>replaces slide

why not just use technology that already exists to deport niggers back to africa? that would reduce our homicides by easily 50%. then apply the same strategy to hispanics, and pretty soon we have decreased our homicide rates by 80%

thats why they call it "building a case"

its not the one hair. or the one casing that seal the deal. its the fact you have a hair, a partial print, cell phone records, witness testimony, tire tracks, motive, shaky or no alibi, suspicious web search history, etc etc that put the probability of odds that there is a better chance of you winning the lottery than not being the perpetrator of a crime. this is presented to a jury, and people all vote and say "yeah the odds of all this shit together being a coincidence is ridiculous, this guy obviously did it" and they vote to lock you up. thats how the justice system works. its not the one hair or recovered casing that sends you to jail. thats just one piece of a hundred pieces of the jigsaw that when fit together, is pretty damning. even DNA isnt reliable. a good detective or prosecutor is not going to rely on one piece of evidence they are going to string up as much as possible

>None of that is relevant, because getting into the big bullshit burger, ballistic forensics are the pseudoest of pseudo-science; you can't actually reliably match a bullet or a casing to any one individual firearm, the marks they look for are extremely likely to match thousands and thousands of other guns of the same model, because guns are made on assembly lines and in large numbers.
again, you need to step out the box and realize they arent goign to bring that to trial alone. they are going to put together the extractor markings, chamber imprints, breech face imprints, firing pin imprints, chemical analysis of the powder residues, finger prints, magazine feed lip scratches. there is plenty of data to round up and when you put it all together it is not pseudo-science, it will definitively tell you which gun fired the casing. because even when things come off an assembly line, there are loose enough tolerances for error or differences in manufacturing that make unique characteristics at a small level. you are deluding yourself if you think its not possible.

now proving the shooter from a casing? totally different task. but you can definitely prove the gun given some basic premises, like assuming it hasnt been tampered with, parts changed, damaged or worn through use. like almost all evidence, time alone has a significant impact. evidence degrades over time, so if you collect the gun 20 years later rusting in a river its goign to be a much more impossible task than if you picked it up 20 minutes later in some bushes 10 feet from the murder scene

its not exact down to the micron, which is the level we are talking about here. because at that level, there are actual differences in unique characteristics of the metal itself. the same way wood has grain, metal has grain. a bar stock of steel cut in 4 different places by the same machine is not going to look the same at enhanced magnification, sorry. metal is not perfect and uniform at the microscopic level, especially if its alloyed. for an exaggerated example you can see with your naked eye, picture the folded nippon katana blade. ok.

What prevents you from wearing these marks away with a couple of hundred rounds at the range?

You need the follicle to gather DNA.

nothing, i already acknowledge the problem with time lapse between evidence. a couple hundred rounds may or may not be enough to create enough wear to make markings different, and presumably you would be smart enough not to leave those couple hundred brass casings at the range along with your name on the range sign in sheet and payment receipt. then again if you were a smart criminal you wouldnt retain the firearm and use it for casual plinking following the use in a crime, would you?

True, I could just fuck the rifling and breech face with a drill, then drop the thing off a boat.

>skates file across firing pin head
:^)

Wrong. Ballistic fingerprinting is pseudoscience

Absolute bullshit

>microstamp becomes unrecognizable after 200 rounds
What now?

>ballistic forensics are the pseudoest of pseudo-science

And yet 99.9% of people on a jury believe it's fact thanks to shows like CSI. So if that fag says it's your gun....it's your gun...whether it was or not. Deal with it.

Microstamping technology is a huge failure, and the primary reason why no gun manufacturer has stepped up to do it, aside from one guy owning a patent and charging way too much to license it, is that the fucking identifying mark on the firing pin wears down after hundreds, sometimes just one hundred rounds. It's a literal joke.

Someone tried to get CA to undo it's microstamping requirement on all future roster handguns, but their state courts determined that a law could not be overturned just because compliance is not technically possible. Go figure.

> a law could not be overturned just because compliance is not technically possible.
That's so California, it's painful.

"Law says that by 2020, everyone has to have a hovercar, for... reasons."
"But hovercars don't exist now, and won't in a year!"
"Too damn bad. Obey the law!"

>unique
Propaganda

>Whoop-de-doo, you proved that suspect A owns gun B...
that information is indeed useless. but you're also missing the point. ballistic fingerprinting can sometimes match bullets and/or casings to an EXACT gun. Not just the same make and model, but a single specific example.

>A fingerprint can be an important piece of evidence, but it can plausibly mean nothing at all.
And that is also true for ballistic fingerprinting.

Maryland is always a meme

the difference is that fingerprints are always unique, where ballistic fingerprints are unique once per every 100,000 cases. In many cases, ballistic fingerprints don't match the exact same gun fired using the exact same ammo using consecutive shots.

It's nearly as useful as reading tea leaves.

>where ballistic fingerprints are unique once per every 100,000 cases.
Hyperbole much?

>In many cases, ballistic fingerprints don't match the exact same gun fired using the exact same ammo using consecutive shots.
Yeah, and in many cases people don't leave real fingerprints good enough to match either.

I'm not saying it's as impressive as TV shows like CSI or NCIS or whatever make it out to be, but it certainly has its uses.

I can tell which of my brass was fired thru either of my two glocks or my 1911 with a simple glance. The 1911 leaves a round dent in the primer, one glock has a lightning strike firing pin which leaves a slot-shaped dent, the other has a round firing pin which is much smaller in diameter than the 1911's.
I can even tell which 1911 mag the brass was fired from, because one of my two mags has a tiny ding on one of the feed lips and that leaves a distinct mark on the brass that the other mag doesn't.

>Hyperbole much?
Nope. Maryland spent 2.7 million dollars on ballistic fingerprinting and it solved ZERO cases. 1:100000 was actually being very forgiving. the ratio is actually worse than that, if you account for all state and federal money spend and cases involved.

Ballistic fingerprinting has solved about as many cases as psychics have.

to follow up:
you can think of it like tire-track analysis or footprint analysis. Someone might look at those and conclude a suspect wore "size 10E Justin boots", or the tracks were left by Dunlop Grandtreks 33x12. On the surface this doesn't look very useful because there are thousands of examples of both of those out there.

But look closer and key details are sometimes apparent. Maybe two years ago I stepped on some welding slag in those boots and melted some of the tread. If the footprint is of good enough quality to show that then it's not just any 10E Justin, it's my specific one which has that burn pattern on it. Or maybe our tire has a couple of plugs in it or a damaged piece of tread which was replicated in the tire track. Then we can match a specific tire to the tracks, not just a general model. Of course those details aren't always present, but they often are.

"solving cases" is a very different claim than "ballistic fingerprints aren't unique".

It's entirely possible to have a perfect ballistic fingerprint, yet never solve the case because you never find the weapon.

They are rarely unique, literally a gun has to be broken for it to be unique, and if it's broken, it's fingerprint will continue to change as it breaks down. That's not unique. Not only are they rarely unique, they also rarely solve crimes. The money spent on ballistic fingerprinting services are regularly audited and ALL come up short in efficacy, general cases being solves is in the single digits per millions of dollars spent for every audit I've seen.

So not only it is just as effective as a court psychic, it's exponentially more expensive.

>, literally a gun has to be broken for it to be unique
Nope. Plenty of things can change the so-called "ballistic fingerprint"--swapping certain aftermarket parts affects the marks on brass (extractors, ejectors, bolt heads). An aftermarket barrel has different rifling than an OE barrel, and so on.

>>The money spent on ballistic fingerprinting derives area audited and ALL come up short in efficacy.
I agree with you 100% that the amount of labor involved is rarely, if ever, worth the benefit.

>Implying that ricing out a glock isn't the same as breaking it
ISHYGDDT

Once again, hyperbole much, user?
You don't have to "rice out" a gun to create a unique ballistic fingerprint. A simple replacement for a broken or worn-out part can do it.

He was making a joke, you sped.