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

phony al wrote:

not relevant wrote:

The issue is not if Baldwin was stupid, irresponsible or reckless. The issue is was a crime committed? Being stupid or careless is not a crime.

Did you go to the same fake law school as the fake lawyer did? You're just wrong. You won't find the word "stupid" in the standard for involuntary manslaughter (and I never used the term either - you did), but whatever the standard is in New Mexico, it will be some formulation of a type of decision making that is considered to rise to the level of criminal. The terms "reckless" and "negligent" are often used, and making a reckless decision that directly results in a death is criminal pretty much everywhere in the US. So, you are WRONG and the very issue that the county prosecutor is looking at right now is indeed whether "Baldwin was stupid, irresponsible or reckless" in aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

not relevant wrote:

There are actually several different issues:

Were there others on the set that committed crimes via negligence or intent? For example, did the assistant director set Baldwin up knowing the gun wasn't cold?

This had to be explained to the fake lawyer earlier, so it sucks having to explain it again. The fact that others on the set may face criminal liability, does not absolve or provide immunity to Baldwin. One criminal cannot point to another criminal and say "he is more guilty than me, so the charges must be dropped." That is not how criminal law works. At least in the US it doesn't work that way. Multiple people can be convicted of the same crime, and can even be convicted under different theories of how the crime was committed.

Hurno. wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. You are trying to split hairs, but you're not even doing that successfully. Accidents happen, and guilt in an accident is not necessarily assigned. Even using the definition, he's not guilty, because he did not commit an "offense" or a "crime".

I will assume you know what a crime is, but let's see the definition of "offense" as it is being used here to define "Guilt".

Offense

"a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act."

Sorry, brother, he did not do that. He has no guilt here at all. He has no legal guilt. He has no moral guilt, and it is beyond unkind to make him feel any guilt in a non-legal way too.

Because I have learned I need to say any exception pretty much every time or I will be called out later, the exception here is IF he was somehow responsible for the props OR he was negligent in any way as a manager of the operation, THEN some guilt can be assigned to him. So far, that has not been shown to be the case.

He is NOT responsible for checking that prop gun. He is NOT responsible for even knowing HOW to check that prop gun. It is beyond ridiculous to blame him for this terrible accident. And besides that, it is unkind to the nth degree.

He KILLED someone are you INSANE?!?

Nothing you EVER say again has any merit.

MY GOD!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

How can you say the things you do...

Hurno. wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"He pointed a loaded gun at two people and fired." (quote)

That is misleading. He pointed a gun that he was told was not loaded, as part of a role he was performing. He didn't point it at two people - the same projectile that killed one person wounded another. None of it was intentional or predictable, as the gun was declared unloaded and safe. The same would have happened if by mistake a loaded weapon was put in the hands of any other actor as part of their role. It could have been the Lone Ranger, Dirty Harry, Bruce Willis et al. It happened to be Alec Baldwin. It does not make him cuplable. The screw-up was in the failure by those supplying the prop to check it.

It's not misleading, it's factually accurate and to the point.

Do you and Flagpole not understand that ANY individual that handles a firearm checks to ensure it is not loaded. Even then, treat it like it is. It seems not one but multiple people who handled this firearm failed to do so resulting in a pointless and tragic death.

He did point it at two people, it is exactly how two people were shot when he pulled the trigger.

He didn't check the firearm

He pointed it in the direction of two people and fired

Those are two things you should never do.

If you shoot someone in self defense, and it kills an innocent bystander behind your attacker, after going through your attacker, you are culpable. You are responsible for what comes out of the barrel of a weapon you are handling and who is in it's path, at all times...period, end of story. Responsible gun owners do not make this mistake, if anti-gun activists respected firearms and handled them properly things like this wouldn't happen.

To be clear, every MORON who handled that firearm and was therefore responsible for it, is at fault here. Baldwin pulled the trigger though, and was likely one of the people "in charge" on set at that time. Therefore, he receives the most blame.

Nobody should have been behind the camera, or there should have been a protective barrier.

This is simple stuff, how is this controversial. Is it a lack of common sense or education?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hurno. wrote:

It's not misleading, it's factually accurate and to the point.

Do you and Flagpole not understand that ANY individual that handles a firearm checks to ensure it is not loaded. Even then, treat it like it is. It seems not one but multiple people who handled this firearm failed to do so resulting in a pointless and tragic death.

He did point it at two people, it is exactly how two people were shot when he pulled the trigger.

He didn't check the firearm

He pointed it in the direction of two people and fired

Those are two things you should never do.

If you shoot someone in self defense, and it kills an innocent bystander behind your attacker, after going through your attacker, you are culpable. You are responsible for what comes out of the barrel of a weapon you are handling and who is in it's path, at all times...period, end of story. Responsible gun owners do not make this mistake, if anti-gun activists respected firearms and handled them properly things like this wouldn't happen.

To be clear, every MORON who handled that firearm and was therefore responsible for it, is at fault here. Baldwin pulled the trigger though, and was likely one of the people "in charge" on set at that time. Therefore, he receives the most blame.

Nobody should have been behind the camera, or there should have been a protective barrier.

This is simple stuff, how is this controversial. Is it a lack of common sense or education?

Yawn. You are wrong again - as usual. Two people checked the firearm before it was given to him and he was told it was safe. Two of them. He should not trust them? Nor did he point it at anyone. He was apparently practising drawing it from his holster when it went off in the direction of a camera.

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.

Hurno. 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 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.|

^This

except to be clear, if your action are recklessly dangerous, like shooting a firearm in the air or in public, even if nobody is harmed, you can still be charged for crimes...just not as serious as if you injured or killed someone. Like if you do 120 mph down the wrong side of the road, you are in trouble big time even if you don't cause any damage.