试析射击弹头、弹壳痕迹特征在枪弹痕迹鉴定中的价值

枪支发射时,在射击弹头、弹壳上将形成多种射击痕迹,对其进行分析检验可以帮助判明射击距离、射击方向、射击者和被害人所处位置,为侦查提供线索;可以确定犯罪行为人作案时所用枪支、子弹的类型;还可以根据弹头、弹壳上的痕迹,对嫌疑枪支进行同一认定,以认定现场上发现的弹头和弹壳是否嫌疑枪支所发射,为侦查诉讼提供证据.本文将根据射击弹头、弹壳痕迹特征的特定性及稳定性进一步研究其在枪弹痕迹鉴定中的价值.     

射击弹壳上新生痕迹特征的检验

检验射击弹壳上的痕迹特征,常规方法主要是对枪弹在装弹、发射、抛壳等过程中枪支有关机件与弹壳对应部位在紧压贴合下产生相对运动和相互作用时在弹壳上形成的痕迹特征的检验。枪支的有关机件在弹壳上形成痕迹的形状、大小、位置以及它们的相互关系反映了枪支的结构特点,是据此认定发射枪种的种类特征;枪支机件在生产加工过程中和在使用过程中形成的轮廓异常及点、线状细小特殊的痕迹特征是认定发射枪支的个别特征。但是在实际检验中,经常遇到由于在射击过程中受到枪弹和各种射击因素的影响或者被破坏,使射击弹壳上供认定发射枪支的个别特…     

54式手枪与仿54式手枪射击弹头弹壳痕迹的区别

1案件简介1998年2月6日,湖南省某医院于某在家属区里被杀,现场提取“51”式手枪弹头、弹壳各一枚,由于现场提取“51”式手枪弹头没有线膛痕迹,需区分是制式“54”式还是仿“54”式手枪发射。检验发现：弹头没有线膛痕迹,弹头表面的擦划线条与弹头中心轴平行,线条没有明显旋转方向,未发现坡膛痕迹。弹壳上有击针痕迹、抛壳挺痕迹、弹底窝痕迹。笔者从枪的结构上寻找区分是否为制式手枪发射的依据。     

发令枪改制小口径手枪射击痕迹的检验

本文介绍了发令枪改制成小口径手枪的结构特点,探讨通过射击弹壳、弹头上的痕迹特征区分改制枪与制式枪的方法,研究了改制枪在检验鉴定中的稳定性和变化规律。     

12号五连发套筒猎枪射击弹壳上痕迹的探讨

本文主要论述了12号五连发套筒猎枪射击弹壳上托弹板划痕、击针头痕、弹底窝痕、上下拉壳钩痕、闭锁保险机碰痕等痕迹的形成及其分布部位、形态、出现率和细微特征的稳定性,为利用弹壳射击痕迹,认定发射枪支提供了科学依据.     

玩具仿真手枪的射击特点

从近期几起涉枪案件中发现的仿真枪支,有些在使用前稍经改制和加工、有些竟然在买到手以后可以直接装填子弹进行射击。一、玩具仿真手枪的结构性能□仿五四式手枪该枪外观上与真枪形状相似,尺寸略小,枪身由金属材料制成,一般由底座把、枪管、发射机构组成。所用子弹为经过改制的5.6mm小口径运动枪弹,由于受抛壳口长度的限制,未经改制的子弹尺寸较长,无法通过抛壳口塞入枪管末端。使用8发经改制的5.6mm小口径运动枪弹进行实验射击,全部射击正常。实验结果表明该枪结构虽十分简陋,但其性能却具有一定的可靠性。射击后弹壳表面烟垢较多,击针痕呈扁圆状凹陷,位于弹壳底部边缘与中心之间。射击弹头一般都会产生不同程度的形变,并且有明显的擦碰痕迹,这是由于弹头在出枪口之前与枪管     

对自制枪支检验鉴定标准的几点思考

枪支检验鉴定是地市级公安机关痕迹人员经常遇到的问题.关于鉴定标准,公安部(2001)68号通知《公安机关涉案枪支弹药性能鉴定工作规定》(以下简称《规定》)已作了明文规定:"(一)凡是制式枪支、弹药,无论是军用枪支、弹药,还是民用枪支、弹药,一律认定为枪支、弹药;(二)凡是能发射制式(含军用、民用)枪支子弹的非制式枪支(包括私自制造、改制枪支),一律认定为枪支;(三)对于不能发射制式(含军用、民用)枪支子弹的非制式枪支,按下列标准鉴定:将枪口置于距厚度为25.4mm的干燥松木板1m处射击,当弹头穿透该木板时,即可认定为足以致人死亡;弹头或弹片卡在松木板上的,即可认定为足以致人伤害.     

捷克产“M52“式7.62mm手枪射击弹壳痕迹初探

捷克产“M52”式7.62mm手枪是近几年来我国涉枪案件中出现率较高的一种外国枪支,由于其能使用国产“51”式7.62mm手枪弹,且射击弹壳痕迹与“54”式7.62mm手枪有许多相似点,因而检验中往往难以区别.笔者对近几年来已破获的一些“M52”手枪射击弹壳痕迹进行了实验研究,并与“54”式7.62mm手枪射击弹壳痕迹进行了比较,发现二者存在许多差异点,现报告     

2005式9mm警用转轮手枪射击弹壳痕迹研究

目的 研究2005式9mm警用转轮手枪射击弹壳痕迹,为警用转轮手枪射击弹壳痕迹检验鉴定提供理论依据.方法 预实验中选取10把警用转轮手枪以单动、联动方式分别射击收取弹壳样本,观察识别射击弹壳上各个痕迹的位置、形态及相互关系;补充验证实验中选取其中5把警用转轮手枪以单动方式分别进行射击实验,完善、验证预实验中得出的结论.结果警用转轮手枪射击弹壳上的烟垢痕迹、弹底窝痕迹及击针头痕迹的分布位置、形态具有规律性,具备检验鉴定价值.结论 利用弹底窝痕迹、烟垢痕迹结合击针头痕迹,可以实现射击弹壳的准确定位;利用烟垢痕迹、弹底窝痕迹及击针头痕迹具有推定弹壳先后射击顺序的可能性;通过弹底窝痕迹、击针头痕迹的细节特征比对,可以实现射击枪支的同一认定.     

从枪弹痕迹识别非制式枪支

区分发射枪支为制式枪支与非制式枪支是枪弹痕迹检验鉴定的第一道工序。对于一些制造粗糙的非制式枪支,其发射的弹头、弹壳上的痕迹特征属性很明显,容易与制式枪支相区别。但对于一些加工很好的非制式枪支,特别是那些用制式的零部件组装的枪支,仅凭单个痕迹就很难与制式枪支相区分。本文就此问题作如下讨论。1　制式枪支的痕迹特征制式枪支的生产、加工都有严格的标准,各个零部件的数据要求精确到0 .0 1mm ,其表面光洁度更有特殊的工艺要求,所以制式枪支发射的弹壳痕迹都很规则,基本上能反映出造痕客体的形状大小和加工特征。对于有一定磨损…     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.