Another thread showcasing how the modern conservative have decided it's more important to score political points than be decent human beings.
Another thread showcasing how the modern conservative have decided it's more important to score political points than be decent human beings.
hire the guy wrote:
You just don't grasp that we are discussing the past. He killed someone by shooting them and you don't understand how taking 2 second to check the gun was worth his time. Nobody checked the gun because it was loaded. These are facts. It already happened.
A member of the crew said it was checked by the armourer and the assistant director, who declared the gun was safe. That was their professional responsibility. Baldwin would have known that and trusted they were correct. They failed to see that it was still armed. In the circumstances, if there was negligence it wasn't his.
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
It's a little sad, as a supporter of gun control myself, that Baldwin failed to exercise good gun control in his personal life. Unfortunately, his reckless actions took someone's life.
Luckily, his civil liability exposure is massive, even if nothing comes of this criminally.
Firstly, it wasn't his personal life, it was his professional life. Secondly, to trust both an armourer and an assistant director who assured him the gun was safe - which was their responsibility - does not constitute recklessness on his part. No court would construe that. The fault lies more arguably with those who should have properly checked the gun before assuring him it was safe. His civil liability as executive producer is not "massive"; it is hypothetical and purely a matter of conjecture at this stage.
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%3fampThat something makes sense to you, doesn't mean the courts will see it the same way.
Jesus Christ! That stupid title. Is it a homicide, I didn't bother reading the title is such b.s.
"Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense. "
Obviously it was homicide, somebody was killed... As to what crime was committed, that will get figured out eventually. Whomever is found to be primarily at fault, I hope gets some prison time, I hope anybody that holds even the smallest amount of blame gets some sort of consequences at least so this never happens again.
I DO NOT care whether it is Alec Baldwin, the Head Armorer, Prop Master, or Assistant Director...or the idiots shooting the "prop" gun for fun with live rounds and leaving it with live rounds in it when they returned it then nobody checking it upon return (Prop Master, AD, Baldwin...apparently the Head Armorer wasn't there at the time)...or the producers fault or any other higher ups fault, like the union workers walking out due to unsafe conditions, etc. Someone should take responsibility for this epic stupidity that went on, on set.
The fact that the Head Armorer allowed her weapons to be played with instead of locked up and not only handled by her and other designated responsible individuals is a problem. There should not have been live rounds on set. Nobody should have a gun fired at them without out extreme precautions taken.. and they weren't taken.
Since people want to absolve Baldwin of responsibility because he's not "an expert", why would you place blame on the Assistant Director? Is he more of an "expert"? That's a genuine question. Seems like they both didn't check.
Wouldn't the Prop Master and Head Armorer be the experts? Why was the gun taken from the table and used without being checked by someone who was qualified? Who's fault is it that proper procedure wasn't followed? To my understanding the Head Armorer wasn't on set at the time. And after filming the day before some of the crew took the gun to shoot around with and returned it with live rounds still in it, then nobody checked it the next day. Was Baldwin doing a rehearsal or goofing off? Goofing off during rehearsal? There is a lot of nuance.
Honest questions here, and one more...Is this what will be looked at in the investigation and trial?
Lol, nope. Incorrect, baby boy. You're so adorable when you pretend to be a smart, fancy lawyer. It's like you read selected parts of online law dictionaries. If only you put such effort into your actual life. Your mother and I are quite disappointed in you. Make your own hot pockets.
who did HuffPost quote? wrote:
I am being swayed by machine gun argument. No one expects actors who fire machine guns in films to inspect all blanks fired. I watched film, Southern Comfort last week. Character Stuckey played by Lewis Smith fired blanks from I believe a M-60 machine gun. Was Lewis Smith supposed to inspect every blank fired? Smith must have fired about (20 to 30) blanks. No C.G.I., 1981.
I get where you're coming from...I'm sure there's something we're both missing. I bet there is a way it is done to make it very safe.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
I love your self awareness. Good schtick
I am on the far right-hand side. That's how aware I am. But I suppose you will be at home here. There are plenty like you.
All evidence to the contrary, but such is the curse of Dunning-Kruger. Just because Mother said you were 'gifted' doesn't make it so.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Lol, nope. Incorrect, baby boy. You're so adorable when you pretend to be a smart, fancy lawyer. It's like you read selected parts of online law dictionaries. If only you put such effort into your actual life. Your mother and I are quite disappointed in you. Make your own hot pockets.
Thank you. Your response reassures me that my estimation was indeed correct.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am on the far right-hand side. That's how aware I am. But I suppose you will be at home here. There are plenty like you.
All evidence to the contrary, but such is the curse of Dunning-Kruger. Just because Mother said you were 'gifted' doesn't make it so.
As you must know by now.
Flagpole wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
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%3fampThat something makes sense to you, doesn't mean the courts will see it the same way.
Yep. What makes sense to stupid people usually makes no sense.
As I have said several times now, IF Baldwin was somehow in charge of those props or in managing that film in a way that makes him culpable (and no, being a "Producer" doesn't necessarily do that), then he might have some sort of charge of negligence coming his way. What some here are saying though is that because he pulled the trigger that he is guilty of a crime. Nope.
The mental gymnastics bro, you are an artist!
You're missing the point because you so quickly dismiss people as stupid or having no compassion, and are usually way off base. Just because someone has a different perspective as you doesn't make them wrong.
Unfortunately, unlike you, I was never told such a thing. Probably helped me in life.
Do your 'clients' as a 'lawyer' know that you can't even get basic law facts correct on an online message board?
interesting take wrote:
Another thread showcasing how the modern conservative have decided it's more important to score political points than be decent human beings.
Baldwin must be condemned by them because he is a liberal and they have all become experts in the law without any legal qualifications.
interesting take wrote:
Another thread showcasing how the modern conservative have decided it's more important to score political points than be decent human beings.
right, Baldwin murders his coworker and it's about "conservatives"
wow, you are dumb
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Unfortunately, unlike you, I was never told such a thing. Probably helped me in life.
Do your 'clients' as a 'lawyer' know that you can't even get basic law facts correct on an online message board?
I know I am right when I am "corrected" by you.
Charles Bukowski wrote:
interesting take wrote:
Another thread showcasing how the modern conservative have decided it's more important to score political points than be decent human beings.
right, Baldwin murders his coworker and it's about "conservatives"
wow, you are dumb
Since he didn't "murder" anyone it appears the dumbness here is all yours.
Seems to be a recurring theme of violence with this turd.
https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/13/35/alec-baldwin.jpg
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Lol, nope. Incorrect, baby boy. You're so adorable when you pretend to be a smart, fancy lawyer. It's like you read selected parts of online law dictionaries. If only you put such effort into your actual life. Your mother and I are quite disappointed in you. Make your own hot pockets.
Thank you. Your response reassures me that my estimation was indeed correct.
2013 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 2 - Homicide
Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter. (1994)
Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-2-3 (2013)
30-2-3. Manslaughter. (1994)
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.
Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Do you now accept, after reading above, that your statement "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." was yet another example of a cosplaying lawyer not actually knowing the law?
This is almost too easy. Please prepare your 'character' better next time, troll.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Sir Mix Alot wrote:
That's called involuntary manslaughter.
"Witness dismissed your honor"- ;)
Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred. Practising part in a film role does not constitute an unlawful act.
No, it absolutely does not require someone to be breaking the law when the death occurred. That is absolutely not true as a matter of law.
Here is the New Mexico statute: "Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection." NM Stat § 30-2-3.
I bolded some relevant words - not for your sake, because you are incapable of understanding basic legal concepts, but for anyone else who may be interested in just how wrong you are on basic stuff. Involuntary manslaughter absolutely does NOT "require that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." Hunting accidents get charged all the time, and hunting is not an unlawful act. If the prosecutors decide aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is acting "without due caution and circumspection" then Baldwin will be charged.
Get your money back from that fake law school you allegedly attended. They screwed you, Magoo! And god help anyone who ever hires you as a lawyer. Good grief, you are a whacked out idiot.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Charles Bukowski wrote:
right, Baldwin murders his coworker and it's about "conservatives"
wow, you are dumb
Since he didn't "murder" anyone it appears the dumbness here is all yours.
He shot and killed his coworker.
phony al wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred. Practising part in a film role does not constitute an unlawful act.
No, it absolutely does not require someone to be breaking the law when the death occurred. That is absolutely not true as a matter of law.
Here is the New Mexico statute: "Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection." NM Stat § 30-2-3.
I bolded some relevant words - not for your sake, because you are incapable of understanding basic legal concepts, but for anyone else who may be interested in just how wrong you are on basic stuff. Involuntary manslaughter absolutely does NOT "require that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." Hunting accidents get charged all the time, and hunting is not an unlawful act. If the prosecutors decide aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is acting "without due caution and circumspection" then Baldwin will be charged.
Get your money back from that fake law school you allegedly attended. They screwed you, Magoo! And god help anyone who ever hires you as a lawyer. Good grief, you are a whacked out idiot.
A little harsh, but ultimately correct.
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
Does not wanting my kids to watch a bisexual threesome at the Olympics make me a bigot?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
