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

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

They aren't "unintelligible" if you can understand them. Self-contradiction. You fail. Again.

knox harrington wrote:

phony al wrote:Would you, I Am Sam, point a gun at someone and pull the trigger without hesitation just because someone you trusted told you the gun was not loaded? If the answer is Yes I Would Do That, then you are less risk adverse than a lot of people. And even if the answer is Yes I Would Do That, can you truly not understand why some people think that is a reckless thing to do?

Many people believe it is simply reckless to point a gun at someone no matter what assurances you have received about the gun, and no matter what your intentions. Are those people wrong? Are those people idiots?

Baldwin may not have intended to pull the trigger.

THAT'S WORSE!!!

I'm going to pull a Flagpole and announce my retirement from letsrun

Please...send me all your hate and love...

Armstronglivs wrote:

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

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.

They aren't "unintelligible" if you can understand them. Self-contradiction. You fail. Again.

Not quite, buddy. It became intelligible once I fixed your mistake. No self contradiction.This one was just as obvious as your mistake on knowledge of the law, but it requires a little grammatical knowledge.

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They aren't "unintelligible" if you can understand them. Self-contradiction. You fail. Again.

Not quite, buddy. It became intelligible once I fixed your mistake. No self contradiction.This one was just as obvious as your mistake on knowledge of the law, but it requires a little grammatical knowledge.

It appears I might have to do a Google, like you are apt to do, and acquaint you with the correct meaning of "unintelligible". I can assure you it doesn't mean a "mistake" - there was none - or that it was ungrammatical - it wasn't. Your choice of word, that it was "unintelligible", meant it wasn't capable of being understood. Yet you understood it perfectly. You simply chose to rewrite it in your own inimitable pretentious fashion, while preserving my meaning. Which you understood. You aren't a very good lawyer, are you? (even if you were trained at Harvard.)

They said it was "cold", but apparently didn't check it, it would have been obvious. Sure he can trust them, but protocol dictates he check it. It seems like Halyna died because everyone trusted each other too much...and nobody made a responsible decision.

He pointed it at both of them, it's how they were shot. It didn't "go off" in the direction of just the camera, but directly at both of them. It's how they were both shot. Why am I explaining this to you again? Am I falling for a troll or are you really that dense???

Always treat every weapon as if it is loaded and always be mindful of what is in the path of the barrel. These are the rules. He shot two people, not a camera, because these rules weren't followed. Which part is outside of your comprehension?

"Be sure of your target and what is behind it" In this case, two people.

"Treat every firearm as if it is loaded always" In this case, it was.

"Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy." He didn't intend to kill

"Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot." For the people who claim he pulled the trigger by accident

Adam Smith, Communist wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

This thread has truly been taken over by the left-hand side of the IQ Bell curve. A complete waste of time.

I love your self awareness. Good schtick

lmao

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"- ;)

exactly...that should be the charge, and will be decided in court.

I have no horses in this race

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hurno. wrote:

" You can't be criminally negligent for a crime, not matter how insane or reckless your behavior, if there is no recognized harm that occurred to begin with.

None of that should even need to be explained to you. Just quit trying to pretend you are a lawyer. You make a fool of yourself constantly. You're a confused person.|

^This

except to be clear, if your action are recklessly dangerous, like shooting a firearm in the air or in public, even if nobody is harmed, you can still be charged for crimes...just not as serious as if you injured or killed someone. Like if you do 120 mph down the wrong side of the road, you are in trouble big time even if you don't cause any damage.

Another hillbilly who thinks he has a law degree.

Is that supposed to be an insult?

Your accuracy is poor, but fantastic precision! You're reliably wrong quite often!!!

lol thanks for pointing that out.

I wrongly assumed he knew that, I should have known better.

Charles Bukowski wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since he didn't "murder" anyone it appears the dumbness here is all yours.

He shot and killed his coworker.

CORRECT!

It was homicide, not murder...like abortion. Murder is illegal. All murder is homicide, not all homicide is murder. All abortion is homicide, it should be murder.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

A little harsh, but ultimately correct.

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.

Listen friend, if a gun he was handling went off "accidentally", that is negligence. The fact it was pointed at two people, is negligence.

"demonstrable and avoidable fault"

There was so much of that, "demonstrable and avoidable fault" Describes the entire production of this movie and all of his actions leading up to the wrongful death of Halyna.

He pointed a gun at two people, pulled the trigger and shot them both, one died. You're not supposed to ever do any of those things.

I can't keep re-explaining this to you...he is responsible for what comes out of a gun he is handling.

It's like you have a mental block against logic, no offense.

Flagpole wrote:

Sir Mix Alot wrote:

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.

"Prop" gun was a real gun, you don't ever assume it is safe.

"I'm on set in make believe land...no logic, laws, or safety procedures apply here."

Just no, no, and no man.

"non-prop gun" That's it, I'm done with you. What the h3ll man.

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.

I want to be very clear here...

I'm one of the "semi-intelligent poeple." he speaks of...

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.

CORRECT!

" morons like you are saying Baldwin is guilty of a crime "

Did I say he was guilty of a crime?

So why focus on me with that statement? Is it because you find me s3xy? It's okay, be honest baby! Do I make you randy?!?

Flagpole wrote:

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.

That's just Baldwin performing his mating ritual with one of his adoring fans.

You're just saying no for the sake of saying no, it's the only time in your life you can be like a hot chick. Stop this power fantasy now before it goes to far!

Armstronglivs wrote:

Adam Smith, Capitalist wrote:

Not quite, buddy. It became intelligible once I fixed your mistake. No self contradiction.This one was just as obvious as your mistake on knowledge of the law, but it requires a little grammatical knowledge.

It appears I might have to do a Google, like you are apt to do, and acquaint you with the correct meaning of "unintelligible". I can assure you it doesn't mean a "mistake" - there was none - or that it was ungrammatical - it wasn't. Your choice of word, that it was "unintelligible", meant it wasn't capable of being understood. Yet you understood it perfectly. You simply chose to rewrite it in your own inimitable pretentious fashion, while preserving my meaning. Which you understood. You aren't a very good lawyer, are you? (even if you were trained at Harvard.)

He used context clues and a previous assessment of your brain and how it thinks. He's controling your mind at this point, you don't even see it.