Impossible. Armstrong spent 50 pages telling us that could not happen.
No, he didn't, you moron. He said he won't be charged with murder. He isn't. Involuntary manslaughter is a totally different offence.
That's a lie. And a very odd way to lie, referring to yourself in third person.
Why would you come back here and post the same lies that you were humiliated with multiple time? Here is short, incomplete list of Posts already addressing your lies (and lousy legal abilities):
Post # 1044 on page 53
Post # 1057 on page 53 (pointing out that you are lying about lying)
Post # 1023 on page 52
Here, YET AGAIN, are your ridiculous legal predictions regarding Baldwin's charges, complete with all the insults against people who accurately informed you that Baldwin indeed may be charged with manslaughter.
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
No, he didn't, you moron. He said he won't be charged with murder. He isn't. Involuntary manslaughter is a totally different offence.
That's a lie. And a very odd way to lie, referring to yourself in third person.
Why would you come back here and post the same lies that you were humiliated with multiple time? Here is short, incomplete list of Posts already addressing your lies (and lousy legal abilities):
Post # 1044 on page 53
Post # 1057 on page 53 (pointing out that you are lying about lying)
Post # 1023 on page 52
Here, YET AGAIN, are your ridiculous legal predictions regarding Baldwin's charges, complete with all the insults against people who accurately informed you that Baldwin indeed may be charged with manslaughter.
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
ARMSTRONGLIV: "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."
Since it's clearly of enormous importance to you, where exactly does it get you - or anyone here - that Baldwin has been re-charged with involuntary manslaughter? Every expert opinion has indicated the obstacles for the prosecution in obtaining a conviction are considerable - which has been my argument throughout.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.