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

How about never putting a live round in a gun you are using in a movie? Anyone shooting live rounds with these guns between takes should be charged. That is just so mind numbing negligent it is hard to understand.

Fixt.

Adam Smith, Communist wrote:

The "I'm rubber you're glue" defense which always holds up to scrutiny...if we were 8 years old. Alas, we are not.

Armstronglivs seems incapable of admitting his simple yet very telling error. For those who may forget, our self-proclaimed lawyer stated categorically that involuntary manslaughter must involve an unlawful act. After being pointed, several times, to the relevant statute which showed him to be clearly wrong, our valiant hero doubled down on his bluster and refused to admit his mistake.

About on par with Bad Wiggins, at this point. Not great company to keep.

I argued that involuntary manslaughter requires an unlawful act or demonstrable negligence, of the kind that death was a real risk. This is a social media thread, not a legal textbook. I don't see that I have to quote statutes chapter and verse here, because I am arguing that the grounds for involuntary manslaughter against Baldwin are very thin - something you can't refute. I hope that is "intelligible" enough for you, since I have seen you have problems of understanding basic English, Mr Harvard Lawyer.

Nope, you said what you said. Just because you said something wrong does not mean you can go back and change what you said. Too late for that. Just accept the fact that you were wrong.

I hope that you are incorrect. It sends the wrong message to tens of millions of people about the handling of guns if we can point and shoot people when we think a gun is empty. Expect a lot of accidental shootings in the next few years if you are correct.

Bald Always Win wrote:

Baldwin merely had to look at it to see a real bullet. Imagine if he had picked up a real knife and stabbed someone claiming that he didn't bother looking at it.

Two people who supposedly checked before him didn't find it was armed. So - no - it isn't like a knife.

danube steak wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I argued that involuntary manslaughter requires an unlawful act or demonstrable negligence, of the kind that death was a real risk. This is a social media thread, not a legal textbook. I don't see that I have to quote statutes chapter and verse here, because I am arguing that the grounds for involuntary manslaughter against Baldwin are very thin - something you can't refute. I hope that is "intelligible" enough for you, since I have seen you have problems of understanding basic English, Mr Harvard Lawyer.

Nope, you said what you said. Just because you said something wrong does not mean you can go back and change what you said. Too late for that. Just accept the fact that you were wrong.

If I am wrong Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. But not because of anything a plonker like you has said, who can't follow an argument.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

I hope that you are incorrect. It sends the wrong message to tens of millions of people about the handling of guns if we can point and shoot people when we think a gun is empty. Expect a lot of accidental shootings in the next few years if you are correct.

He didn't aim it at anyone. As far as he was aware, it was a safe stage prop. He had been told so. It was - as you say - an accidental shooting.

phony al wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It was a bit windy but you just described yourself there. Phony Al. I agree. You are humiliating yourself without realizing it.

After criticizing others for what you alleged was a lack of legal knowledge, and pretending you had an abundance of it yourself, you posted this (page 29 of this thread at 11:51 EDT (10/25/21)): "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred."

You were WRONG. You posted a demonstrably erroneous statement of law. Your inability to grasp that basic standard for involuntary manslaughter infects every opinion you've expressed in this thread. All are deficient and invalid.

Yawn. I also said that it requires alternatively demonstrable negligence. A bit like your demonstrable lack of intelligence.

Did it ricochet or turn a corner? I thought he shot somebody 5 feet in front of him. Please link to the story that proves he didn't kill someone from direct fire. Pretty sure you just completely blew another fact (pun).

You've just argued negligence, which I have never disputed is a factor that can result in a criminal charge. That was discussed at the very beginning of the thread. In the absence of negligence an unlawful act is required. But by all means feel you are expert because you have consulted Google.

Like many an expert who has publicly commented I would be surprised if Baldwin is charged with manslaughter. If he is it won't be because of anything you have argued here.

And your opinion is neither law nor knowledge but flatulence. I will keep that in mind.

NYT.

"The account by Mr. Souza explained why Mr. Baldwin had been pointing the gun at the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins. But it did not answer the question of how a gun that was not supposed to contain live ammunition wound up killing her."

Armstrong doesn't seem to understand that facts can't be disputed regardless of how much he tries. Baldwin pointed the loaded gun and fired it at a person and killed her. Those facts are not open to interpretation. He probably wasn't intending to shoot her. He probably would never have pointed the gun at a person if he knew that it was loaded. But he did not check.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

NYT.

"The account by Mr. Souza explained why Mr. Baldwin had been pointing the gun at the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins. But it did not answer the question of how a gun that was not supposed to contain live ammunition wound up killing her."

A live round killed her because Baldwin took the word of someone and assumed there were no live rounds in the chamber. The end user of the firearm is ALWAYS responsible for ensuring the firearm is or is not loaded, and depending on the case, with what. Assumptions can kill people. Case in point. As an NRA firearm instructor I can also tell you that this is drilled into students during training. That being said, there appear to have been multiple breakdowns in the chain of firearm responsibility prior and including when Baldwin pulled the trigger. Huge failures across the board, starting when the firearm was allowed to also be utilized for target practice. Accident waiting to happen. Whether anyone is ultimately charged here will be an interesting legal discussion, however as I'm not a lawyer, I'm not able to speculate one way or another. What I can tell you however, based on established firearm safety protocol, there is plenty of negligence to do around.

Armstronglivs wrote:

.

eat my flatulence

Bald Always Win wrote:

Armstrong doesn't seem to understand that facts can't be disputed regardless of how much he tries. Baldwin pointed the loaded gun and fired it at a person and killed her. Those facts are not open to interpretation. He probably wasn't intending to shoot her. He probably would never have pointed the gun at a person if he knew that it was loaded. But he did not check.

That fact does NOT mean he is guilty of anything. Unless it is found that he contributed to the sloppiness of the weapons checking (not his responsibility to do it himself) or condoned the use of those prop guns for the "plinking" that apparently was going on, he will not be found guilty of anything and should not be.

Bald Always Win wrote:

Armstrong doesn't seem to understand that facts can't be disputed regardless of how much he tries. Baldwin pointed the loaded gun and fired it at a person and killed her. Those facts are not open to interpretation. He probably wasn't intending to shoot her. He probably would never have pointed the gun at a person if he knew that it was loaded. But he did not check.

"Probably"? Any opinion you have of the shooting is tainted by your extremely low opinion of Baldwin.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

Did it ricochet or turn a corner? I thought he shot somebody 5 feet in front of him. Please link to the story that proves he didn't kill someone from direct fire. Pretty sure you just completely blew another fact (pun).

It can kill someone without being aimed at them. It is reported that he was practising a "draw" motion when the gun discharged - which means that it was completely accidental that the victim was in the line of fire.