Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
And here he is again. Different victim, more violence. He should have been on some kind of domestic terrorist list. Maybe this tragedy could have been prevented.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Nothing he hasn't read or heard before from law professors, colleagues, judges, clients, the disciplinary board of whatever bar he is registered in . . . .
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Can't read, either? That's rough, buddy. Read the last two posts on page 30, please. Then tell the class how you feel.
"Souza said three people were handling the gun for the scene. Armorer Hanna Gutierrez Reed reportedly handled prop guns left on a cart outside the structure they were shooting in due to coronavirus restrictions."
I apologize if I was incorrect earlier. I heard she wasn't on set. I assumed she hadn't arrived up to that point for the day, not that she was outside the set and was supposed to have checked the weapon before giving the Assistant Director the okay to take it to Baldwin. She's supposed to be the expert, if she checked and missed they were not blanks, can we expect the AD or Baldwin to be able to tell. She takes the blame here...
But Baldwin still violated cardinal gun safety rules, along with Halyna and the Director being behind the camera without a barrier placed in front of them for safety, if Baldwin was to fire at the camera. There is still negligence from many parties involved. If any one of like 6 different kinds of precaution was followed, this would have never resulted in a death.
Put up a barrier- nobody dies
don't be behind the camera- nobody dies
don't fire at someone- nobody dies
no live rounds on set- nobody dies
have someone competent check the firearm, nobody dies
follow proper procedures-nobody dies
I appreciate your charity in assuming he is actually a lawyer. You're a better person than I am.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can you imagine calling someone an idiot while making a basic error about your own supposed job?
That's Armstronglivs, everyone.
Own it, baby.
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Oh yes, he did.
You posted this: "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."
The law says this: ""Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection." NM Stat § 30-2-3.
Your legal error was not only identified, but it was demonstrated to you, and then you were corrected. Twice that happened, in fact.
I wasn't kidding about trying to get a refund from your fake law school. You got scammed, punchy.
But wrong again. Baldwin firing what he was told was a stage prop in a rehearsal does not constitute involuntary manslaughter, because the act is not inherently unlawful or made so by the gun discharging, unless there was a likelihood that he knew it was armed. He was assured it wasn't. It would have been little different if the gun had gone off purely by accident - as indeed it may have. That would not make it involuntary manslaughter. To make it manslaughter requires demonstrable and avoidable fault - in this case, clear negligence, as I have said previously, or that the act was itself unlawful, such as drink-driving, assault or a robbery, for example. You people can quote all the legal statutes and authorities you like; it doesn't mean you understand them.
Sadly, none of you understand the principles you are quoting. Parroting legal provisions doesn't give you legal understanding.
"I think the guy that handed him the gun will. I could be wrong. "
I think this part of the blame(loaded weapon) is more the Armorer's fault then the Assistant Director's. She's the "expert" that either gave him the loaded gun or left it out for him.
If someone took it for target practice during a lunch break and she didn't recheck it, it's still her fault...she's responsible for the firearms on set and having them secured, imo.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
I appreciate your charity in assuming he is actually a lawyer. You're a better person than I am.
That wouldn't be difficult.
Nice, I appreciate your ability to bald-facedly lie your way out of a corner. Perhaps you are a lawyer after all. A bad lawyer, as proven by your lack of legal knowledge, but at least a confident one.
Congrats.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You really are stung by my assessment of your intelligence, aren't you? Just can't let up. You have not identified any error you claim I have made. You are out of your depth.
Can't read, either? That's rough, buddy. Read the last two posts on page 30, please. Then tell the class how you feel.
I feel sorry that you have to sit in the corner.
So far from what we know, he is not culpable. What you described there is not negligence. He was given a gun, told it was "cold", there were two people before him whose job it was to check that gun, and he was practicing for his scene. Not his fault in any possible way...again based on the information we have so far.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Can't read, either? That's rough, buddy. Read the last two posts on page 30, please. Then tell the class how you feel.
I feel sorry that you have to sit in the corner.
Buddy, just admit you made a mistake. You just look worse to everyone who can actually read, which even on Letsrun is most people.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Nice, I appreciate your ability to bald-facedly lie your way out of a corner. Perhaps you are a lawyer after all. A bad lawyer, as proven by your lack of legal knowledge, but at least a confident one.
Congrats.
I guess it is upsetting for you to do that on-line research (what was that crack about getting a degree off Google) and still not grasping what it means.
Sir Mix Alot wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yawn. You are wrong again - as usual. Two people checked the firearm before it was given to him and he was told it was safe. Two of them. He should not trust them? Nor did he point it at anyone. He was apparently practising drawing it from his holster when it went off in the direction of a camera.
That's called involuntary manslaughter.
"Witness dismissed your honor"- ;)
Nope. If it were a known non-prop gun with live ammo in it or any kind of expectation whatsoever that it might have live ammo in it...but that was not the case. Baldwin had every reasonable expectation that that gun was safe. NOT involuntary manslaughter. A tragic accident that might ensnare the one or two people in charge of the props, but not Baldwin.
Keep on digging the hole, buddy. Maybe you'll fool Flagpole (no great feat), but at least your mistake is obvious to semi-intelligent poeple.
Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I feel sorry that you have to sit in the corner.
Buddy, just admit you made a mistake. You just look worse to everyone who can actually read, which even on Letsrun is most people.
You were wrong, severally, with your first post, as I pointed out to you, and citing statutes hasn't added anything to your arguments. You still don't get how extremely unlikely it is that Baldwin will face a manslaughter charge. If you were prosecuting he would definitely breath a sigh of relief.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year