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

interesting take wrote:

Another thread showcasing how the modern conservative have decided it's more important to score political points than be decent human beings.

True, and a good point.

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

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.

It appears then that you are semi-intelligent, because the intelligent know that you and the semi-intelligent are wrong.

Armstronglivs wrote:

hire the guy wrote:

You just don't grasp that we are discussing the past. He killed someone by shooting them and you don't understand how taking 2 second to check the gun was worth his time. Nobody checked the gun because it was loaded. These are facts. It already happened.

A member of the crew said it was checked by the armourer and the assistant director, who declared the gun was safe. That was their professional responsibility. Baldwin would have known that and trusted they were correct. They failed to see that it was still armed. In the circumstances, if there was negligence it wasn't his.

CORRECT!

Armstronglivs wrote:

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

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.

You didn't point out anything besides saying, in essence, 'nuh uh'. There's little doubt in my mind that it's unlikely he'll face a manslaughter charge, since he's rich, famous, and has the support of dribbling lawyer cosplayers such as yourself. That has nothing to do with whether or not his actions fit the definition of involuntary manslaughter, as anyone who can read can tell they indeed do.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

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.

It appears then that you are semi-intelligent, because the intelligent know that you and the semi-intelligent are wrong.

Aww, buddy, you're pretty sharp. If only you actually knew the law, you might make a pretty good lawyer.

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

You didn't point out anything besides saying, in essence, 'nuh uh'. There's little doubt in my mind that it's unlikely he'll face a manslaughter charge, since he's rich, famous, and has the support of dribbling lawyer cosplayers such as yourself. That has nothing to do with whether or not his actions fit the definition of involuntary manslaughter, as anyone who can read can tell they indeed do.

Fortunately courts don't rely for interpretation of the law on "anyone who can read". And you are just "anyone", aren't you?

Hurno. wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yep. What makes sense to stupid people usually makes no sense.

As I have said several times now, IF Baldwin was somehow in charge of those props or in managing that film in a way that makes him culpable (and no, being a "Producer" doesn't necessarily do that), then he might have some sort of charge of negligence coming his way. What some here are saying though is that because he pulled the trigger that he is guilty of a crime. Nope.

The mental gymnastics bro, you are an artist!

You're missing the point because you so quickly dismiss people as stupid or having no compassion, and are usually way off base. Just because someone has a different perspective as you doesn't make them wrong.

No mental gymnastics at all. Right now, morons like you are saying Baldwin is guilty of a crime simply because he pulled the trigger and a person died. That's NONSENSE. Regarding right and wrong, YOU are simply wrong here. This is how it will play out too. Baldwin will not be found guilty of a crime and more than likely will not even be charged. The dude who handed him the gun and declared it "cold" and the other props lady perhaps might be. There is some slight possibility that because he's a "Producer" that they might give him some sort of fine if they determined he contributed to an unsafe environment in any way, but he did nothing criminal here and will not be found guilty of a crime and again, probably not even charged.

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It appears then that you are semi-intelligent, because the intelligent know that you and the semi-intelligent are wrong.

Aww, buddy, you're pretty sharp. If only you actually knew the law, you might make a pretty good lawyer.

Unfortunately, thinking you know the law wouldn't make you one.

"The job of armorer only makes sense if this person controls all access to and use of guns. However..."The affidavit said that the three guns had been left on a gray cart outside the structure where Mr. Baldwin was working on a scene “due to Covid-19 restrictions.”

That is exceedingly stupid, I blame whomever made that decision. I think it is essential she did her job to the letter(controls all access to the firearms), someone died because she didn't....I think that proves her job being essential and therefore not skipped or interrupted due to COVID restrictions, beyond stupid.

Charles Bukowski wrote:

Seems to be a recurring theme of violence with this turd.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/13/35/alec-baldwin.jpg

Baldwin's failings as a human being have no bearing on this incident. He's a prick. Just about everyone acknowledges that. What he is not though is guilty of murder or manslaughter or any other derivation thereof. What a stupid connection on your part to make.

You might want to reframe your first sentence, it's unintelligible as written. Presumably you meant: 'Fortunately, courts don't rely on "anyone who can read" for interpretation of the law.'

Regardless, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. Of course, saying such a thing on Letsrun means nothing. As does your assertion that you are a lawyer. But hey, at least your mistake was obvious.

You are still wrong. Baldwin did nothing "unlawful". It was an accident, and there was no negligence on his part (again as far as we know based on what we know so far). The fact that he's the one who pulled the trigger that discharged the gun that killed that woman does NOT make him guilty of a crime. People aren't just charged with involuntary manslaughter when there is an accident that ends up in someone's death. Let go of the bit, dude, you are wrong.

Charles Bukowski wrote:

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.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/69e/b8b/dcad147cfc2c120ba918334a794d954e65-27-alec-baldwin-1.w710.jpg

That picture has ZERO bearing on this accident. Ridiculous that you think it does.

Flagpole wrote:

Charles Bukowski wrote:

Seems to be a recurring theme of violence with this turd.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/13/35/alec-baldwin.jpg

Baldwin's failings as a human being have no bearing on this incident. He's a prick. Just about everyone acknowledges that. What he is not though is guilty of murder or manslaughter or any other derivation thereof. What a stupid connection on your part to make.

Baldwin is being condemned here because he is detested by the Right. It is all irrelevant to what he did. It could have been any other actor and I would still argue on the known facts that the grounds of possible culpability are extremely thin. That does not reduce the tragic nature of those events.

Handling a gun is different than those things, you don't understand the nuance it seems. It is a deadly weapon, if you handle it, you are responsible for what comes out of it and what it destroys. Firearms training 101 homie. You don't need to be an expert to follow it. This is "Intro to firearms" stuff. I'm sure Baldwin has gone through it many times.

I agree live ammo shouldn't be on set, I believe it isn't allowed. Whomever allowed it should be held accountable.

If shooting at the camera is called for, either nobody should be behind the camera or there should be a protective barrier placed. This is standard protocol that wasn't followed. It would have saved a life.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Baldwin's failings as a human being have no bearing on this incident. He's a prick. Just about everyone acknowledges that. What he is not though is guilty of murder or manslaughter or any other derivation thereof. What a stupid connection on your part to make.

Baldwin is being condemned here because he is detested by the Right. It is all irrelevant to what he did. It could have been any other actor and I would still argue on the known facts that the grounds of possible culpability are extremely thin. That does not reduce the tragic nature of those events.

Yep.

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

You might want to reframe your first sentence, it's unintelligible as written. Presumably you meant: 'Fortunately, courts don't rely on "anyone who can read" for interpretation of the law.'

Regardless, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. Of course, saying such a thing on Letsrun means nothing. As does your assertion that you are a lawyer. But hey, at least your mistake was obvious.

If it was "unintelligible" I wonder how you were able to correctly understand what was meant by my comment. Did your Harvard education by-pass setting traps of self-contradiction? But pointless pedantry was obviously rewarded.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

You might want to reframe your first sentence, it's unintelligible as written. Presumably you meant: 'Fortunately, courts don't rely on "anyone who can read" for interpretation of the law.'

Regardless, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. Of course, saying such a thing on Letsrun means nothing. As does your assertion that you are a lawyer. But hey, at least your mistake was obvious.

If it was "unintelligible" I wonder how you were able to correctly understand what was meant by my comment. Did your Harvard education by-pass setting traps of self-contradiction? But pointless pedantry was obviously rewarded.

In much the same way as I can fix the rambling of a 3rd-grader, I can fix the unintelligible scrawlings of a 'lawyer' on Letsrun. There's no self-contradiction there, buddy.

Nope...the examples beezel gave are appropriate and not lacking in any nuance. Just because guns give you an erection doesn't make them special in this case.