His mental state absolutely matters in court. Out of money and pressuring his employees to cut corners to finish, or else. I assume you will lose your mind when the prosecution brings up the conditions of the job (film set) and his pressuring people to what he demands. He is a lot like Trump.
I hate Baldwin but this case is nonsense....IT WAS AN ACCIDENT....
The defense might scream that, but the jury won't buy it. Accidents happen when someone applies pressure on someone else. He pulled the trigger while pointing straight at someone. A few inches to the side and no dead person. His choice to direct aim to get the movie shot HE WANTED.
I hate Baldwin but this case is nonsense....IT WAS AN ACCIDENT....
New Mexico has been voted the worst run state in the country(google it) and this is an example...
Red states are the worst run. Begging for government handouts because they wan't (refuse to) tax people enough to pay the spending they approve. Someone else will pay for it ... so Trumpian.
His mental state absolutely matters in court. Out of money and pressuring his employees to cut corners to finish, or else. I assume you will lose your mind when the prosecution brings up the conditions of the job (film set) and his pressuring people to what he demands. He is a lot like Trump.
Disagreements with motorists have nothing to do with practices on a film set.
The defense will present 20 times triggers were pulled on other sets while the gun was pointed at someone.
The more obvious one is Baldwin didn't put the live round in the chamber. No live round, no tragedy.
The prosecution will try to show there was a culture of non-safety caused by Baldwin's behavior but unless he prevented the armorer from checking for live rounds that angle will no go nowhere.
Not a Baldwin fan by any means. Reasonable jury will acquit.
The defense will present 20 times triggers were pulled on other sets while the gun was pointed at someone.
The more obvious one is Baldwin didn't put the live round in the chamber. No live round, no tragedy.
The prosecution will try to show there was a culture of non-safety caused by Baldwin's behavior but unless he prevented the armorer from checking for live rounds that angle will no go nowhere.
Not a Baldwin fan by any means. Reasonable jury will acquit.
The defense presenting that 20 times triggers were pulled with the gun pointing at someone with no deaths will get Baldwin convicted. All it does is show how careless safety was on set.
Can a real lawyer out there tell me how Baldwin can be convicted of a crime where someone else has previously been convicted for the same crime? Seems to me all Baldwin's lawyer needs to show is that if the armorer had done her job then no death would have happened.
That is a fair argument. However if it can be shown independently that Baldwin was grossly negligent (that is a legal term) then he also becomes a cause of her death that might have been avoided if he wasn't so negligent. The armorer isn't then the sole cause of death. That is likely what the case against him will hinge on.
Well, you've sure changed your tune on the Baldwin case since back in the day (see, e.g., page 50). It's like you went through an exorcism or something.
The defense will present 20 times triggers were pulled on other sets while the gun was pointed at someone.
I doubt they will be allowed to (assuming they even rounded that evidence up). Judges have a lot of discretion in what is relevant (and the judge just tossed any evidence about Baldwin being a producer), but I doubt the judge would let that in. Of what relevance is someone else's negligence? What's the defense argument? "Look, they did it too! Why pick on me?" That never works.
Shade wrote:
The more obvious one is Baldwin didn't put the live round in the chamber. No live round, no tragedy.
I'm sure the defense will make that clear, and the prosecution will probably admit Baldwin didn't load the gun. It's part of his best defense, but won't really be the issue the jury is expected to decide -- it's by no means a dispositive defense to say "I didn't load the gun that I shot someone with."
The prosecution will try to show there was a culture of non-safety caused by Baldwin's behavior but unless he prevented the armorer from checking for live rounds that angle will no go nowhere.
That won't be the prosecution's primary argument, and you're comment about "unless he prevented the armorer from checking for live rounds that angle will no go nowhere" is almost nonsensical.
The primary prosecution argument will be that it is reckless or criminally negligent to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, irrespective of whether someone else told you it was not loaded. It's hard to disagree with that argument. Would you point a gun at someone (assuming they were not threatening you) and pull the trigger, even if you believed the gun was not loaded? Most cautious people would not do that, because it's extremely dangerous to go fvcking around with firearms like that.
Reasonable jury will acquit
We shall see. A reasonable jury could also think he's reckless pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, and vote to convict. It's far from predictable at this point, and there is plenty of evidence yet to be admitted.
"other sets". Let me spell it out for you: While not best practice, it is not unusual to have an actor pull the trigger on a gun while it is pointed at someone. In fact, movie sets are full of people and it would be hard to ensure no one is down range whenever a trigger is pulled during a scene. Baldwin pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger was not out of movie norms. The problem was the live round in the chamber.
That is a fair argument. However if it can be shown independently that Baldwin was grossly negligent (that is a legal term) then he also becomes a cause of her death that might have been avoided if he wasn't so negligent. The armorer isn't then the sole cause of death. That is likely what the case against him will hinge on.
Well, you've sure changed your tune on the Baldwin case since back in the day (see, e.g., page 50). It's like you went through an exorcism or something.
I was arguing chiefly against the prevailing view here that Baldwin committed intentional homicide - murder, in other words. Like the legal experts who have commented on this case, I have been surprised that criminal charges were brought - of involuntary manslaughter - but in view of those charges it will require proof of gross negligence, as I said. That is what the prosecution will argue but I agree with the experts who say that satisfying that burden will be an uphill task.
"other sets". Let me spell it out for you: While not best practice, it is not unusual to have an actor pull the trigger on a gun while it is pointed at someone. In fact, movie sets are full of people and it would be hard to ensure no one is down range whenever a trigger is pulled during a scene. Baldwin pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger was not out of movie norms. The problem was the live round in the chamber.
I think you have identified a crucial factor here which separates the case from others that involve deaths from the discharge of a firearm, and that is what are the standard practices that occur on a movie set. It will be crucial to the defence.
This post was edited 58 seconds after it was posted.
Well, you've sure changed your tune on the Baldwin case since back in the day (see, e.g., page 50). It's like you went through an exorcism or something.
I was arguing chiefly against the prevailing view here that Baldwin committed intentional homicide - murder, in other words. Like the legal experts who have commented on this case, I have been surprised that criminal charges were brought - of involuntary manslaughter - but in view of those charges it will require proof of gross negligence, as I said. That is what the prosecution will argue but I agree with the experts who say that satisfying that burden will be an uphill task.
No, you weren't. You're now lying and everyone knows it. See page 50.