5 ms·
I think you got my point backwards. If you are found with a gunshot wound in your head, holding a gun, but you don't have gunpowder residue on your hand, it's p
by sfn42 3y ago
I think you got my point backwards. If you are found with a gunshot wound in your head, holding a gun, but you don't have gunpowder residue on your hand, it's pretty safe to say you didn't shoot yourself.
Of course there are ways to get around that but the killer has to actually perform that workaround.
- withinboredom 3y agoI got your point, but I was making that point that even then, it doesn’t mean anything. Maybe they went to a shooting range that afternoon. Maybe the killer does something to ensure the residue is there. Maybe the killer manipulates them in their sleep. Who knows.
- sfn42 3y agoNo you still don't seem to get the point. I'm saying the *absence* of gunpowder residue means something, I'm not saying the presence of it means anything.
- thaumasiotes 3y agowithinboredom seems to be making the similar but tangential point that, in the same way that absence of gunpowder is evidence [of something] while presence of gunpowder isn't evidence of anything, it's possible to demonstrate that a death was not by suicide, but it isn't possible to demonstrate that a death was by suicide. Same idea, but reversing "which part of the sentence is the variable".
- sfn42 3y agoI understand what they're saying, I just don't know why they keep explaining it when its irrelevant to what I'm saying.
- vasco 3y agoIf you fire a gun inside a car, both people and the car would be full of gun powder residue, not just the hand that shot - I think.
- dolmen 3y ago... and that should be the same residue.
- withinboredom 3y agoI'm not "keeping explaining." I made a counter-point, and you redirected me to your point; I acknowledged that I got your point and explained I was making a counter-point, and you reiterated your point. I upvoted your final reiteration to ack that the conversation was over.