Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
And here he is again. Different victim, more violence. He should have been on some kind of domestic terrorist list. Maybe this tragedy could have been prevented.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
phony al wrote:
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.
Nothing he hasn't read or heard before from law professors, colleagues, judges, clients, the disciplinary board of whatever bar he is registered in . . . .
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Can't read, either? That's rough, buddy. Read the last two posts on page 30, please. Then tell the class how you feel.
347893 wrote:
According to a search warrant executed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's office, obtained by Fox News, the actor and crew were setting up a shot that required Baldwin to cross-draw a revolver and point the weapon at the camera. However, thanks to a shadow that was coming into the church structure from light outside, the camera had to be adjusted to a different angle. Baldwin was working with the director and the cinematographer demonstrating how he was going to draw his revolver from its holster and where his arm would be for the new shot. While demonstrating, the firearm went off.
Director Joel Souza explained that he heard "what sounded like a whip and then a loud pop," and noticed Hutchins, who was standing in front of him at the time, grab her midsection as she stumbled backward. She "was assisted to the ground" by other crew members and camera operator Reid Russell recalls Hutchins saying she could not feel her legs.
Hutchins was immediately attended to by on-site medics and later airlifted to the University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she was eventually pronounced dead. Souza, who was also injured in the incident, was taken by ambulance to Christus St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe where he was treated for a wound near his right shoulder. He has since been released from the hospital.
Souza said three people were handling the gun for the scene. Armorer Hanna Gutierrez Reed reportedly handled prop guns left on a cart outside the structure they were shooting in due to coronavirus restrictions. Assistant director Dave Halls handed one of those guns to Baldwin. According to a Santa Fe court, Halls announced that it was a "cold gun" before giving it to the actor, lingo meaning that the firearm was unloaded. As a result, Baldwin and the two people who were wounded believed the firearm was safe to use in the staging of the scene. Both the director and Russell noted that cameras were not rolling at the time as they were still setting up the shots.
Souza said in the warrant that the cast and crew prepared the scene before lunch and then had their meal away from the shooting location around 12:30 p.m. He was not sure if the gun was checked again when everyone returned from lunch. However, he stated that firearms are supposed to be checked by the armorer followed by the assistant director before handing them to the actor. He said he was not sure if people were checked for live ammunition on their person, but stated that live ammunition should not have been anywhere near the scene.
"The safety of our cast and crew is the top priority of Rust Productions and everyone associated with the company," Rust Movie Productions said in a statement to multiple outlets. "Though we were not made aware of any official complaints concerning weapon or prop safety on set, we will be conducting an internal review of our procedures while production is shut down. We will continue to cooperate with the Santa Fe authorities in their investigation and offer mental health services to the cast and crew during this tragic time."
"Souza said three people were handling the gun for the scene. Armorer Hanna Gutierrez Reed reportedly handled prop guns left on a cart outside the structure they were shooting in due to coronavirus restrictions."
I apologize if I was incorrect earlier. I heard she wasn't on set. I assumed she hadn't arrived up to that point for the day, not that she was outside the set and was supposed to have checked the weapon before giving the Assistant Director the okay to take it to Baldwin. She's supposed to be the expert, if she checked and missed they were not blanks, can we expect the AD or Baldwin to be able to tell. She takes the blame here...
But Baldwin still violated cardinal gun safety rules, along with Halyna and the Director being behind the camera without a barrier placed in front of them for safety, if Baldwin was to fire at the camera. There is still negligence from many parties involved. If any one of like 6 different kinds of precaution was followed, this would have never resulted in a death.
Put up a barrier- nobody dies
don't be behind the camera- nobody dies
don't fire at someone- nobody dies
no live rounds on set- nobody dies
have someone competent check the firearm, nobody dies
follow proper procedures-nobody dies
I appreciate your charity in assuming he is actually a lawyer. You're a better person than I am.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Oh yes, he did.
You posted this: "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."
The law says this: ""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.
Your legal error was not only identified, but it was demonstrated to you, and then you were corrected. Twice that happened, in fact.
I wasn't kidding about trying to get a refund from your fake law school. You got scammed, punchy.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
phony al wrote:
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.
But wrong again. Baldwin firing what he was told was a stage prop in a rehearsal does not constitute involuntary manslaughter, because the act is not inherently unlawful or made so by the gun discharging, unless there was a likelihood that he knew it was armed. He was assured it wasn't. It would have been little different if the gun had gone off purely by accident - as indeed it may have. That would not make it involuntary manslaughter. To make it manslaughter requires demonstrable and avoidable fault - in this case, clear negligence, as I have said previously, or that the act was itself unlawful, such as drink-driving, assault or a robbery, for example. You people can quote all the legal statutes and authorities you like; it doesn't mean you understand them.
phony al wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Oh yes, he did.
You posted this: "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."
The law says this: ""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.
Your legal error was not only identified, but it was demonstrated to you, and then you were corrected. Twice that happened, in fact.
I wasn't kidding about trying to get a refund from your fake law school. You got scammed, punchy.
Sadly, none of you understand the principles you are quoting. Parroting legal provisions doesn't give you legal understanding.
Steiner Math wrote:
Anytime someone hands you a weapon, you are supposed to check to see if it's loaded, that's basic firearms safety. It doesn't sound like basic firearms safety was being practiced by anyone on this movie set. Baldwin was just unlucky to be the idiot holding the gun when it eventually went off.
A guy in my Marine platoon shot and killed his best friend while cleaning a handgun because he didn't think it was loaded. He didn't go to trial because the DA felt the shooting was accidental and wouldn't get a conviction.
The DA has a lot of leeway to bring charges, I don't think Alec Baldwin will face trial, I think the guy that handed him the gun will. I could be wrong. Anyone who says for sure that someone will or will not face trial at this point does not know what they are talking about.
(Full disclosure: most of us thought he did it on purpose and were surprised he didn't go to jail, that dude was always a little off)
"I think the guy that handed him the gun will. I could be wrong. "
I think this part of the blame(loaded weapon) is more the Armorer's fault then the Assistant Director's. She's the "expert" that either gave him the loaded gun or left it out for him.
If someone took it for target practice during a lunch break and she didn't recheck it, it's still her fault...she's responsible for the firearms on set and having them secured, imo.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
I appreciate your charity in assuming he is actually a lawyer. You're a better person than I am.
That wouldn't be difficult.
Nice, I appreciate your ability to bald-facedly lie your way out of a corner. Perhaps you are a lawyer after all. A bad lawyer, as proven by your lack of legal knowledge, but at least a confident one.
Congrats.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Can't read, either? That's rough, buddy. Read the last two posts on page 30, please. Then tell the class how you feel.
I feel sorry that you have to sit in the corner.
Hurno. 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.
Involuntary manslaughter involves no intent to kill, third degree murder does not involve intent to kill. They are crimes that involve prison time. Negligently killing someone is a crime. Not making sure a firearm is safe then firing it at someone, killing them, is a crime...no matter the situation. It's negligent homicide, plain and simple.
Negligent- He didn't check a firearm he was handling and pointed it at someone and fired, this was recklessly dangerous, he was trained to know better than to do that.
Homicide- He killed someone
Which of the above is difficult to comprehend???
said cowboy did not kill somebody, in your example
You are both either call this site dumb or other people and their perspectives dumb...look in the mirror. You are missing some pretty big and simple stuff.
So far from what we know, he is not culpable. What you described there is not negligence. He was given a gun, told it was "cold", there were two people before him whose job it was to check that gun, and he was practicing for his scene. Not his fault in any possible way...again based on the information we have so far.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can't read, either? That's rough, buddy. Read the last two posts on page 30, please. Then tell the class how you feel.
I feel sorry that you have to sit in the corner.
Buddy, just admit you made a mistake. You just look worse to everyone who can actually read, which even on Letsrun is most people.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Nice, I appreciate your ability to bald-facedly lie your way out of a corner. Perhaps you are a lawyer after all. A bad lawyer, as proven by your lack of legal knowledge, but at least a confident one.
Congrats.
I guess it is upsetting for you to do that on-line research (what was that crack about getting a degree off Google) and still not grasping what it means.
Sir Mix Alot wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
That's called involuntary manslaughter.
"Witness dismissed your honor"- ;)
Nope. If it were a known non-prop gun with live ammo in it or any kind of expectation whatsoever that it might have live ammo in it...but that was not the case. Baldwin had every reasonable expectation that that gun was safe. NOT involuntary manslaughter. A tragic accident that might ensnare the one or two people in charge of the props, but not Baldwin.
Keep on digging the hole, buddy. Maybe you'll fool Flagpole (no great feat), but at least your mistake is obvious to semi-intelligent poeple.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I feel sorry that you have to sit in the corner.
Buddy, just admit you made a mistake. You just look worse to everyone who can actually read, which even on Letsrun is most people.
You were wrong, severally, with your first post, as I pointed out to you, and citing statutes hasn't added anything to your arguments. You still don't get how extremely unlikely it is that Baldwin will face a manslaughter charge. If you were prosecuting he would definitely breath a sigh of relief.
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