So let's see if he will be convicted of anything. There will be a lot of disappointed posters if he isn't.
He’s already been charged. You can’t even admit you were wrong on that account Time to move the goalposts. Lol
Legal experts are saying he won't be convicted of anything. Unless there's information that is unknown to the public at this point, I agree. Reportedly there is no new information since the last group of prosecutors declined to take this to court.
It was a tragic accident. Not all accidents need to end with someone going to prison, and no one is going to go to prison here. They need to make prop guns so that they are incapable of firing a bullet...how has that not been the case to date?
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.
I have no dog in this fight, but I really can't understand why you aren't capable of simply saying "Yes, I said he wouldn't be charged with anything, and I was wrong." Both of these things are plainly true at this point.
Everyone gets things wrong sometimes. Nothing to be ashamed of there. But it is truly bizarre to be unable to recognize that you were wrong after the fact once it has become obvious. You emphatically made a claim that has turned out to not hold up. Why can't you just say "yeah, I got that one wrong" and move on?
He’s already been charged. You can’t even admit you were wrong on that account Time to move the goalposts. Lol
Legal experts are saying he won't be convicted of anything. Unless there's information that is unknown to the public at this point, I agree. Reportedly there is no new information since the last group of prosecutors declined to take this to court.
It was a tragic accident. Not all accidents need to end with someone going to prison, and no one is going to go to prison here. They need to make prop guns so that they are incapable of firing a bullet...how has that not been the case to date?
Another poster who said he wouldn’t charged and now moving the goalposts. Lol
Legal experts are saying he won't be convicted of anything. Unless there's information that is unknown to the public at this point, I agree. Reportedly there is no new information since the last group of prosecutors declined to take this to court.
It was a tragic accident. Not all accidents need to end with someone going to prison, and no one is going to go to prison here. They need to make prop guns so that they are incapable of firing a bullet...how has that not been the case to date?
Another poster who said he wouldn’t charged and now moving the goalposts. Lol
I never said he wouldn't be charged. I have said he SHOULDN'T be, and he still shouldn't have been. Not moving any goalposts. He did nothing criminal here...again, unless there's something we don't know. These charges will either eventually be dropped, or he will beat it in court. The third very small possibility is that his lawyer convinces him that there's a sliver of a chance he will be found guilty and that he could do some sort of plea deal which keeps him out of prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen...and it shouldn't. Horrible accident, nothing more.
Another poster who said he wouldn’t charged and now moving the goalposts. Lol
I never said he wouldn't be charged. I have said he SHOULDN'T be, and he still shouldn't have been. Not moving any goalposts. He did nothing criminal here...again, unless there's something we don't know. These charges will either eventually be dropped, or he will beat it in court. The third very small possibility is that his lawyer convinces him that there's a sliver of a chance he will be found guilty and that he could do some sort of plea deal which keeps him out of prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen...and it shouldn't. Horrible accident, nothing more.
You (Flagpole) are an leading actor starring in the next Expendables movie. The armorer hands you a bazooka and the director tells you to point it at Sly Stallone and fire. Are you not going to at least look at the weapon to make sure it is no loaded?
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."
Another poster who said he wouldn’t charged and now moving the goalposts. Lol
I never said he wouldn't be charged. I have said he SHOULDN'T be, and he still shouldn't have been. Not moving any goalposts. He did nothing criminal here...again, unless there's something we don't know. These charges will either eventually be dropped, or he will beat it in court. The third very small possibility is that his lawyer convinces him that there's a sliver of a chance he will be found guilty and that he could do some sort of plea deal which keeps him out of prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen...and it shouldn't. Horrible accident, nothing more.
NOW you’re saying that after you moved the goalposts. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong about him not being charged and move along.
Just admit you were wrong. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?
I never said he wouldn't be charged. I have said he SHOULDN'T be, and he still shouldn't have been. Not moving any goalposts. He did nothing criminal here...again, unless there's something we don't know. These charges will either eventually be dropped, or he will beat it in court. The third very small possibility is that his lawyer convinces him that there's a sliver of a chance he will be found guilty and that he could do some sort of plea deal which keeps him out of prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen...and it shouldn't. Horrible accident, nothing more.
NOW you’re saying that after you moved the goalposts. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong about him not being charged and move along.
Just admit you were wrong. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?
Show me where I said he wouldn't be charged. I never said such a thing.
I never said he wouldn't be charged. I have said he SHOULDN'T be, and he still shouldn't have been. Not moving any goalposts. He did nothing criminal here...again, unless there's something we don't know. These charges will either eventually be dropped, or he will beat it in court. The third very small possibility is that his lawyer convinces him that there's a sliver of a chance he will be found guilty and that he could do some sort of plea deal which keeps him out of prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen...and it shouldn't. Horrible accident, nothing more.
You (Flagpole) are an leading actor starring in the next Expendables movie. The armorer hands you a bazooka and the director tells you to point it at Sly Stallone and fire. Are you not going to at least look at the weapon to make sure it is no loaded?
Doesn't matter what I would do. Matters ONLY if what Baldwin did was criminal, and I don't believe it was. Horrible accident. That's it. Should the armorer be charged or should whomever brought live ammo to the set me charged AND convicted? Likely yes. Should Alec Baldwin be charged with and convicted of MURDER or MANSLAUGHTER? Not based on the info we have so far. IF he brought the live ammo to the set or IF he had some secret reason he wanted to kill that woman and made it happen, the yes.
NOW you’re saying that after you moved the goalposts. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong about him not being charged and move along.
Just admit you were wrong. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?
Show me where I said he wouldn't be charged. I never said such a thing.
I’m not going to go back and look (at least right now), but I seem to recall you were pretty emphatic that Baldwin couldn’t be charged. Not as unreasonable, idiotic and insulting as Armstrong, but emphatic enough to look stupid now.
This is a terrible accident. I don’t think anyone seriously wants Baldwin in prison. But under American law when someone dies in a clearly preventable accident, there almost always be criminal prosecution. And what you continue to fail to appreciate is that a lot of people think it is reckless and criminal to point a gun at some and pull the trigger, no matter who or how many people told you the gun wasn’t loaded. I’d never in a million years do that, and neither would most people. Would you?
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."
I never said he wouldn't be charged. I have said he SHOULDN'T be, and he still shouldn't have been. Not moving any goalposts. He did nothing criminal here...again, unless there's something we don't know. These charges will either eventually be dropped, or he will beat it in court. The third very small possibility is that his lawyer convinces him that there's a sliver of a chance he will be found guilty and that he could do some sort of plea deal which keeps him out of prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen...and it shouldn't. Horrible accident, nothing more.
You (Flagpole) are a leading actor starring in the next Expendables movie. The armorer hands you a bazooka and the director tells you to point it at Sly Stallone and fire. Are you not going to at least look at the weapon to make sure it is no loaded?
If I’m an actor and the armorer hands me a bazooka I’m not going to check anything because WTF do I know about bazookas?
You (Flagpole) are a leading actor starring in the next Expendables movie. The armorer hands you a bazooka and the director tells you to point it at Sly Stallone and fire. Are you not going to at least look at the weapon to make sure it is no loaded?
If I’m an actor and the armorer hands me a bazooka I’m not going to check anything because WTF do I know about bazookas?
If you know nothing about bazookas - wouldn't it be a good idea to just hand the bazooka to the armorer?
You (Flagpole) are a leading actor starring in the next Expendables movie. The armorer hands you a bazooka and the director tells you to point it at Sly Stallone and fire. Are you not going to at least look at the weapon to make sure it is no loaded?
If I’m an actor and the armorer hands me a bazooka I’m not going to check anything because WTF do I know about bazookas?
Would you point it at someone's head and pull the trigger just for funzies?
Baldwin the actor? Likely not culpable. Baldwin the producer? Likely.
I think that this is the most likely outcome.
There seems to have been a lot of sloppiness on the set regarding gun and ammo use. There was supposed to be NO live ammo on the set, and yet there was a previous incident on the set with live ammo. And Baldwin the producer has at least some level of responsibility regarding that.
Probably what will happen is that Baldwin (the producer) will plead guilty to some minor offense that won't send him to jail. It's a win win. The prosecutor can say that Baldwin is guilty, and Baldwin avoids jail time.
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.
