Been through this once or twice, huh, Steff?

 

 

Sadly I have though.

Been through this once or twice, huh, Steff?

 

Heaven's no. Not me personally. I might break a nail....

Heaven's no. Not me personally. I might break a nail....

Sorry 'bout that. What'd the other guy lose?

The first, and easiest, thing they will do is a ballistics comparison. Take the shells,casings, or bullets at the scene, compare them to a test shot of Juan's gun. If they match, he's got some explaining to do. If they don't, then he's clear.

 

The guage is determined by the shot used. They would know that upon visual inspection of the spent shells at the crime scene.

 

If the gun was cleaned, it will show it wasn't fired. Since he might be anal and clean his gun everyday, a result of that test wouldn't mean much.

If it was his handgun, then yeah, as you and Rock said, firing tests can be done.

 

I was assuming, based on Jackie's post, it was the shotgun. And if they were in a car, there likely will not be any shells on the ground. So they'll have to go by spread, etc. The type of shot found isn't really an indicator of the gun, since various guages of shotgun can use various size of shot in their shells.

 

Juan's hands could also be tested for residue, but I am not sure how long that residue normally stays in the skin (or how effectively it could be scrubbed out). That wouldn't confirm the gun, but would confirm if he'd fired one recently.

Everything I've read just says 'his gun' (or something similarly generic), and a shotgun is involved, so I was just asking what tests they could do for a shotgun, in principle. I don't know either way what sort of gun he turned in.

 

Of course I know what to do with a pistol. I have watched CSI, thank you very much.

A shotgun shot does leave barrel marks on whatever is expelled from it, and a firing test would confirm if the gun he turned in was used in the shooting. Being in a car means little because shells from any fired weapon can be projected anywhere. Unless they picked them up, they can be anywhere. As well, guage can be determined from the pellets.

 

GSR washes off with one soap and water washing.

 

Jackie, the same tests they run on handguns are used for shotguns.

Sorry 'bout that. What'd the other guy lose?

His two best friends.

A shotgun shot does leave barrel marks on whatever is expelled from it, and a firing test would confirm if the gun he turned in was used in the shooting. Being in a car means little because shells from any fired weapon can be projected anywhere. Unless they picked them up, they can be anywhere. As well, guage can be determined from the pellets.

 

GSR washes off with one soap and water washing.

 

Jackie, the same tests they run on handguns are used for shotguns.

My understanding of shotgun shot is that you cannot tell anything from damage to the shot. The shot is just a bunch of little metal beads, so you cannot get a pattern on them. And in this case, I didn't get the knowledge from TV. Tests on shotguns show blast pattern and spread, and some other factors. But the shot isn't usable for identification to a specific gun (unless things have changed a lot in the last 10 years).

My understanding of shotgun shot is that you cannot tell anything from damage to the shot. The shot is just a bunch of little metal beads, so you cannot get a pattern on them. And in this case, I didn't get the knowledge from TV. Tests on shotguns show blast pattern and spread, and some other factors. But the shot isn't usable for identification to a specific gun (unless things have changed a lot in the last 10 years).

 

 

I don't get info from TV either. The pellets in shotgun shells of varying guage have identifying characteristics. I've been shooting shotguns for many years (hunting and in turkey shoot competitions) and this is common knowledge.

CSI: Domincan Republic

 

Theme song: Not sure, but it will be required to be a Who song.

Juan Uribe: "They're trying to extort me."

cool

I don't get info from TV either. The pellets in shotgun shells of varying guage have identifying characteristics. I've been shooting shotguns for many years (hunting and in turkey shoot competitions) and this is common knowledge.

Yes, they have identifying characteristics to that type of cartridge. Not to the gun. Think about it. A small metal pellet, which is round, could be scarred in an infinitely variable set of ways, none of which are particular to the barrel of any one gun.

 

Now, I suppose if they shotgun was loaded with slugs, then you could do identify scoring marks from a specific barrel.

 

Matching shotguns to any sort of evidence they leave, as a rule, is problematic.

Yes, they have identifying characteristics to that type of cartridge. Not to the gun. Think about it. A small metal pellet, which is round, could be scarred in an infinitely variable set of ways, none of which are particular to the barrel of any one gun.

 

Now, I suppose if they shotgun was loaded with slugs, then you could do identify scoring marks from a specific barrel.

 

Matching shotguns to any sort of evidence they leave, as a rule, is problematic.

 

 

As I specified in the post you responded to, I was referrering specifically to the guage of the pellets and not identifying marks on the pellets, of which most don't even touch the inside of the barrel so whatever is on them is usually only what they've hit.

 

I've already commented on the matching of shells - the pellet housing - via test firing in a previous post.

 

One has nothing to do with the other and I certainly wasn't implying that they did.

As I specified in the post you responded to, I was referrering specifically to the guage of the pellets and not identifying marks on the pellets, of which most don't even touch the inside of the barrel so whatever is on them is usually only what they've hit.

 

A shotgun shot does leave barrel marks on whatever is expelled from it, and a firing test would confirm if the gun he turned in was used in the shooting.

 

See above. In any case, we've obfuscated the thread.

 

So how about that Juan Uribe? Pretty dandy with the glove, eh?

 

I really hope he is telling the truth. But I know zero about the man.

See above. In any case, we've obfuscated the thread.

 

So how about that Juan Uribe? Pretty dandy with the glove, eh?

 

I really hope he is telling the truth. But I know zero about the man.

 

 

The shell is expelled from the barrel. The pellets are expelled from the shell.

There's only one way to settle this once and for all.

 

The first annual Soxtalk duel!

 

Gory and educational. Just consider it.

There's only one way to settle this once and for all.

 

The first annual Soxtalk duel!

 

Gory and educational. Just consider it.

 

 

There's already been a few of those.

 

I'll pass on this one.

 

It was a good question I thought.

There's already been a few of those.

 

I'll pass on this one.

 

It was a good question I thought.

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

 

Besides, Steff would kick my a**.

Ballistic test could get Uribe off hook

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines

I hope it proves him innocent and all of this non-sense can end. Despite his offensive problems (ie unwillingness to walk which gets him in trouble) Uribe is one of my favorite players in all of baseball to watch (especially out in the field).

Uribe had 13 walks all of last season.

 

That's just plain disgusting.

 

Get rid of him please, KW.

 

Hopefully we can either get Hrniak to work with Uribe again for a refresher on how to keep his front end from starting the tazmanian spin, or we dish him out and get someone who can provide some bat control.

Uribe had 13 walks all of last season.

 

That's just plain disgusting.

 

Get rid of him please, KW.

 

Please enlightmen me as to where one could find defense as good as or nearly as good as Uribe's while also finding an upgrade from a .715 OPS for $4.5 mill.

 

Add to the fact that KW has already given him a vote of confidence, and I'm not sure I see any reason why Uribe would be dealt.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please enlightmen me as to where one could find defense as good as or nearly as good as Uribe's while also finding an upgrade from a .715 OPS for $4.5 mill.

 

Add to the fact that KW has already given him a vote of confidence, and I'm not sure I see any reason why Uribe would be dealt.

I'm not so sure if they'd deal him, but Omar Vizquel plays great defense, will post an OPS greater than .698 (Uribe's OPS from last season,) and makes a little over $4 million.