Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

Flagpole wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

Yep. There is no intent here. No crime. The dummies are certainly flooding this thread for sure.[

You make a good point that this might be the dumbest site on the internet. THAT is something that might actually make me leave forever. Hmm...something to seriously consider. I had considered it during the Trump Presidency, but I did want to see the election through. Then, after Biden won, the idiots stayed away for a short period of time as they licked their wounds. They have obviously returned. It does go against what at least SEEMS to be the way things are...people who care about their fitness, who (most of them) went to college, who have dedication when it comes to something (running in this case) it would SEEM would be smarter on average, but man, there are just too many here who show otherwise.

Anyway, you have given me food for thought. When I have to defend a prick like Alec Baldwin, maybe it's time to leave.

phony al wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

And you just added to the dumbness with this backwards logic: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."

That's like saying no one can be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter when their inattention to driving caused the crash, because everyone else who was similarly inattentive but did not crash their car was not similarly charged. That's idiot logic. Baldwin shot someone. All the other cowboys did not, whether they checked their gun or not (and you still don't have the slightest idea whether its a routine practice for actors to check guns on a movie set or not). You can't be criminally negligent for a crime, not matter how insane or reckless your behavior, if there is no recognized harm that occurred to begin with.

None of that should even need to be explained to you. Just quit trying to pretend you are a lawyer. You make a fool of yourself constantly. You're a confused person.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

phony al wrote:

And you just added to the dumbness with this backwards logic: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."

That's like saying no one can be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter when their inattention to driving caused the crash, because everyone else who was similarly inattentive but did not crash their car was not similarly charged. That's idiot logic. Baldwin shot someone. All the other cowboys did not, whether they checked their gun or not (and you still don't have the slightest idea whether its a routine practice for actors to check guns on a movie set or not). You can't be criminally negligent for a crime, not matter how insane or reckless your behavior, if there is no recognized harm that occurred to begin with.

None of that should even need to be explained to you. Just quit trying to pretend you are a lawyer. You make a fool of yourself constantly. You're a confused person.

You're pretending to be a lawyer with experience in accidental shootings as well. I've seen about 10 opinions from lawyers about Baldwin's accident and only one thought he might be criminally charged. Here's one from Alan Dershowitz who also believes Baldwin's liability will only be from being the executive producer:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/578183-is-the-alec-baldwin-shooting-a-homicide%3famp

That something makes sense to you, doesn't mean the courts will see it the same way.

Flagpole wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

Yep. There is no intent here. No crime. The dummies are certainly flooding this thread for sure.

You make a good point that this might be the dumbest site on the internet. THAT is something that might actually make me leave forever. Hmm...something to seriously consider. I had considered it during the Trump Presidency, but I did want to see the election through. Then, after Biden won, the idiots stayed away for a short period of time as they licked their wounds. They have obviously returned. It does go against what at least SEEMS to be the way things are...people who care about their fitness, who (most of them) went to college, who have dedication when it comes to something (running in this case) it would SEEM would be smarter on average, but man, there are just too many here who show otherwise.

Anyway, you have given me food for thought. When I have to defend a prick like Alec Baldwin, maybe it's time to leave.

phony al wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

And you just added to the dumbness with this backwards logic: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."

That's like saying no one can be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter when their inattention to driving caused the crash, because everyone else who was similarly inattentive but did not crash their car was not similarly charged. That's idiot logic. Baldwin shot someone. All the other cowboys did not, whether they checked their gun or not (and you still don't have the slightest idea whether its a routine practice for actors to check guns on a movie set or not). You can't be criminally negligent for a crime, not matter how insane or reckless your behavior, if there is no recognized harm that occurred to begin with.

None of that should even need to be explained to you. Just quit trying to pretend you are a lawyer. You make a fool of yourself constantly. You're a confused person.

phony al wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yep. There is no intent here. No crime. The dummies are certainly flooding this thread for sure.[

You make a good point that this might be the dumbest site on the internet. THAT is something that might actually make me leave forever. Hmm...something to seriously consider. I had considered it during the Trump Presidency, but I did want to see the election through. Then, after Biden won, the idiots stayed away for a short period of time as they licked their wounds. They have obviously returned. It does go against what at least SEEMS to be the way things are...people who care about their fitness, who (most of them) went to college, who have dedication when it comes to something (running in this case) it would SEEM would be smarter on average, but man, there are just too many here who show otherwise.

Anyway, you have given me food for thought. When I have to defend a prick like Alec Baldwin, maybe it's time to leave.

You are making the same mistake that the nitwit you are responding to has been corrected on several times. Intent is not limited to deliberation. Reckless and negligence are degrees of intent. That is the issue here - whether Baldwin was reckless or negligent in failing to check whether the gun he aimed and shot someone with was loaded. Did he fail to appreciate the danger associated with aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, when a reasonable person would have?

Look what happens when you rely on a fake lawyer to support your ideas. You've ended up making a farewell post. You're about as likely to fade away as that Stoppit Smith guy, but at least he never got guided that way by a fake lawyer. Do better.

Armstronglivs wrote:

phony al wrote:

You are making the same mistake that the nitwit you are responding to has been corrected on several times. Intent is not limited to deliberation. Reckless and negligence are degrees of intent. That is the issue here - whether Baldwin was reckless or negligent in failing to check whether the gun he aimed and shot someone with was loaded. Did he fail to appreciate the danger associated with aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, when a reasonable person would have?

Look what happens when you rely on a fake lawyer to support your ideas. You've ended up making a farewell post. You're about as likely to fade away as that Stoppit Smith guy, but at least he never got guided that way by a fake lawyer. Do better.

You have no idea what intent means as a legal principle. Nor do you understand what is legally reckless or negligent and nor do you grasp that there are no facts known so far to adduce either might apply. You are so far out of your depth I can hear bubbles.

Flagpole wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And the law requires intent for there to be a crime - the part you missed. Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did. This has to be the dumbest site on the internet.

Yep. There is no intent here. No crime. The dummies are certainly flooding this thread for sure.

You make a good point that this might be the dumbest site on the internet. THAT is something that might actually make me leave forever. Hmm...something to seriously consider. I had considered it during the Trump Presidency, but I did want to see the election through. Then, after Biden won, the idiots stayed away for a short period of time as they licked their wounds. They have obviously returned. It does go against what at least SEEMS to be the way things are...people who care about their fitness, who (most of them) went to college, who have dedication when it comes to something (running in this case) it would SEEM would be smarter on average, but man, there are just too many here who show otherwise.

Anyway, you have given me food for thought. When I have to defend a prick like Alec Baldwin, maybe it's time to leave.