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

I agree. Those posters have started to change their claims already. They just move forward and pretend their new position was essentially the same as the old one.

Baldwin surely deserves some of the blame. The director who got shot and the poor safety procedures also deserve some blame. But the vast majority has to go to the armorer, who allowed a live bullet on the set and somehow allowed it in a gun that was being used.

Many of you let your politics dictate your opinions on Baldwin. The more intelligent of us are avoiding this palpable error.

You don't seem to be knowledgeable of Armstrong's posts and arguments in this thread (I'll post a greatest hits summary of them soon). If you were, you would understand the well deserved ridicule.

Not true. Not in cases such as this one, of which there are many.

Pretty weird take to say prosecutors are reluctant on the very day they file charges. They took months because they were thorough. The fact that they were thorough is not good for the person charged.

Anything is possible. If you are saying the prosecutors will change their mind, your hope is very unlikely. If you are saying Baldwin will plea bargain for some kind of lesser charge, that is likely, but that is quite different than prosecutors deciding they made a bad charging decision.

LOL!! See above.

I don't understand. He us charged regardless of politics. Which politics do believe push people in one direction or another?

Many think Baldwin should hang because he is a Liberal. Many think he should not face any charges because he is a Liberal. This is a fact.

Apparently so. If you go on a firearms course they tell you do everything you're told by the instructor and if you do that and you still end up shooting someone, then they're liable for allowing it to happen.

He should have followed orders. He wasn't suppossed to point the gun and pull the trigger. That's why he is charged.

Please provide some examples. Otherwise, it sounds like you are biased.

It is obvious. I can provide examples but you really cannot see them yourself? How would I be biased? How stupid are you? Please explain how I would be biased.

Some of Armstrong's greatest hits (legal errors, stupid posts, fake lawyer claims, and pompous insults) in this thread:

"I am qualified in law. You, on the other hand, are merely as you describe yourself - a phony. Your drivel above just proved it again."

"Baldwin will not be charged with anything. Name the last time an actor was charged with careless use of a firearm while rehearsing on a film set, let alone anything more serious. This thread is for deluded uneducated fantasists. So many of you."

"It isn't your field of law - that explains it. Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence. Crimes require intent. There was no intent. He was in a scene rehearsal. Negligence requires a failure to observe a duty of care. The negligence wasn't his. He was given a firearm that he was assured was not armed."

"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."

"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."

"You don't know what involuntary manslaughter is. It isn't simply a mistake but a killing that results from breaking the law. Baldwin pointing a gun (that was declared to be unloaded) in the course of acting a film role was not breaking any law - otherwise innumerable actors have been in breach of the law when acting a role. Nor was it criminal negligence unless it was obvious there was a real risk of serious injury. Since the gun was declared to be safe by someone he ought to have been able to trust that argues against criminal negligence by Baldwin in those circumstances."

"This thread has truly been taken over by the left-hand side of the IQ Bell curve. A complete waste of time."

"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. Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."

"Another hillbilly who thinks he has a law degree."

"It is clear you have no legal training. You cannot distinguish between a term used in a popular sense and how it is used legally."

"I understand that you are an ignoramus with no legal qualifications. You prove it with everything you say. Tell me how the Cornell post above that defines the presumption of innocence as it only applies to "a defendant in a criminal trial" is wrong. That means the presumption doesn't apply to every other American who isn't a defendant in a criminal trial. Basic English is beyond you, let alone legal principle."

"It really is difficult to exchange views with someone who has no idea either of his limitations or his ignorance of what he is talking about. You would know this if you realised that by arguing there are justifiable "exceptions" to criminal culpability for a given act - the taking of life - the thing they refer to must therefore be proscribed. If this was not so there would be no need to argue there are exceptions, would there?"

You have no examples but stated it as fact. You identified your bias by resorting to name calling. You don't like or respect people who don't agree with you.

Nope! I never said that.

I do have a bias against fools, as I don’t suffer them gladly. There are endless examples. I will provide them when I have time. I lose patience with you idiots. I already told you many side with Baldwin because he is a Liberal and many oppose him because he is a Liberal. How is that biased?

Those who are calling for Baldwin's head are posting emotionally, and just about all of them are doing so because either they are gun nuts who think that everyone should have the same affection and knowledge of guns that they do, OR they just simply don't like Baldwin because of his political views.

Accidents happen, and that doesn't mean that someone needs to be held accountable. From what we know so far (and again, I fully admit we might not know all the details that could change things here), it doesn't appear that a logical person would convict Baldwin of Involuntary Manslaughter here.

Baldwin is a prick, but that's no reason to take a horrible accident and put him behind bars for it (again, unless there are details about this case we don't yet know).

Prop Master and the dude who gave him the gun and said it was "cold" should be held accountable. Baldwin...nah (again, unless there are things we don't yet know).

You are biased against people who you believe are not as intelligent. You make sweeping generalizations about them due to your bias. Name calling is really not nice. Would you do that to your mother if she had a different opinion than you?

Controversial take here... Guns can be used to hurt people. Like really badly. So, one should be careful when handling guns. I know this is widely known. Fortunately, there are classes where one can learn how to safely handle guns, and if you meticulously follow all the protocols they teach, then you will very likely not have a problem.

Be safe with you guns, folks.

It wasn't an accident that he pointed and pulled the trigger. Nobody is calling for his head. Most just want a fair trial while you were stating that he wouldn't be charged instead of allowing for the legal system to play out and merely supporting the system.

Yes if it is a bias to feel annoyance at stupid folks you can deem me guilty of bias.
As far as the charge, it really should be amended to womanslaughter if it is going to proceed. The man slaughtered a woman, however inadvertently it likely was.