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

The Santa Fe County Sheriff and DA stated yesterday at their press conference that no charges have been filed as yet and the investigation is still ongoing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bald Always Win wrote:

Armstrong doesn't seem to understand that facts can't be disputed regardless of how much he tries. Baldwin pointed the loaded gun and fired it at a person and killed her. Those facts are not open to interpretation. He probably wasn't intending to shoot her. He probably would never have pointed the gun at a person if he knew that it was loaded. But he did not check.

Your claim that he pointed the gun at the victim cannot be substantiated. Reports say he was practising a "draw" motion with the gun when it went off. It suggests the death was completely accidental.

Practicing a draw motion with people around? Sounds pretty reckless to me. Why do you defend this guy at every turn? He is a terrible person. He deserves due process but he is one of the biggest jerks ever.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bald Always Win wrote:

Armstrong doesn't seem to understand that facts can't be disputed regardless of how much he tries. Baldwin pointed the loaded gun and fired it at a person and killed her. Those facts are not open to interpretation. He probably wasn't intending to shoot her. He probably would never have pointed the gun at a person if he knew that it was loaded. But he did not check.

Your claim that he pointed the gun at the victim cannot be substantiated. Reports say he was practising a "draw" motion with the gun when it went off. It suggests the death was completely accidental.

I mean, I know that you're stupid, but even you must realize that for a bullet to hit someone the gun must be pointed in their direction. Baldwin isn't curving bullets like in Wanted, Mr Fake Lawyer man.

Wrong again. He pointed it at the camera and pointed it at the victim.

Discussion by those who know the law. Unlikely that Baldwin is charged with anything criminally and, if so, the lowest charge of handling a firearm negligently.

No, you didn't. You argued this: "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." That is WRONG.

You then called the person who you were disagreeing with a "drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law." Some words that come to mind with respect to your name calling are irony, hypocrisy, humiliation, egg, and face.

More importantly, the phrase that comes to mind is "lack of credibility" meaning that, to the extent you ever had any, you absolutely no longer do. You are a FAKE lawyer.

The statute section in question is a mere sentence long. The relevant portion of it is six words.

Here it is: "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."

If you truly felt the need to paraphrase a basic, one sentence legal standard, you could have at least done so in a way that was not 180 degrees the opposite of what the law actually is. See above regarding lack of credibility.

Yeah, unfortunately those of us who pointed out as much earlier were drowned out by personal arguments of no substance.

Why do you have to keep lying, Mr Fake Lawyer man? This just looks worse and worse the more you refuse to accept your basic error. Get your fake law school money back

phony al wrote:

No, you didn't. You argued this: "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." That is WRONG.

Manslaughter itself is a crime, so how could one commit manslaughter without breaking the law?

Elvin wrote:

phony al wrote:

No, you didn't. You argued this: "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." That is WRONG.

Manslaughter itself is a crime, so how could one commit manslaughter without breaking the law?

Oh man, my mind hasn't been this blown since I looked at an Escher painting on LSD.

Don't ask me about chickens and eggs. You hear me? Just don't ask. I will flip the fvck out and have an existential seizure.

danube steak wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your claim that he pointed the gun at the victim cannot be substantiated. Reports say he was practising a "draw" motion with the gun when it went off. It suggests the death was completely accidental.

Practicing a draw motion with people around? Sounds pretty reckless to me. Why do you defend this guy at every turn? He is a terrible person. He deserves due process but he is one of the biggest jerks ever.

His personality is irrelevant - except to those like you who would condemn him for it. A crime requires intent, or an unlawful act, or gross negligence. From the facts we have so far none of that applies to Baldwin - however much you dislike him.

Adam Smith, Communist wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your claim that he pointed the gun at the victim cannot be substantiated. Reports say he was practising a "draw" motion with the gun when it went off. It suggests the death was completely accidental.

I mean, I know that you're stupid, but even you must realize that for a bullet to hit someone the gun must be pointed in their direction. Baldwin isn't curving bullets like in Wanted, Mr Fake Lawyer man.

You have just proven your Harvard degree is a fake. A gun could be put down or dropped and accidentally discharge and wound or kill someone who happened to be in the line of fire. This happens. In that situation, the gun was not "pointed" at anyone. To claim that Baldwin "pointed" the gun at the victim suggests he aimed at her, when all it required was for the gun to discharge as he was handling it. That is what has been explained by a witness so far. A loaded gun does not have to be "pointed" at anyone to kill them; all it requires is that the victim has the misfortune to be in the line of fire.

I am not surprised that someone who doesn't grasp the correct meaning of "unintelligible" - as you have shown - fails to see this.

Phony Al, I didn't argue what you think I did - but alas you are determined to prove your lack of intelligence at every opportunity.

Adam Smith, Communist wrote:

Why do you have to keep lying, Mr Fake Lawyer man? This just looks worse and worse the more you refuse to accept your basic error. Get your fake law school money back

Since you have failed to show that Baldwin committed manslaughter and that you don't understand what "unintelligible" means I am happy to hold on to my qualification. Yours however appears to be an embarrassment. Standards are certainly falling at Harvard.

surveysays wrote:

fada tyme wrote:

Discussion by those who know the law. Unlikely that Baldwin is charged with anything criminally and, if so, the lowest charge of handling a firearm negligently.

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/death-on-a-movie-set-ex-prosecutors-attorneys-react-to-alec-baldwins-shocking-prop-gun-shooting-accident/

Yeah, unfortunately those of us who pointed out as much earlier were drowned out by personal arguments of no substance.

Or more accurately - a baying for blood from the Right.

phony al wrote:

Elvin wrote:

Manslaughter itself is a crime, so how could one commit manslaughter without breaking the law?

Oh man, my mind hasn't been this blown since I looked at an Escher painting on LSD.

Don't ask me about chickens and eggs. You hear me? Just don't ask. I will flip the fvck out and have an existential seizure.

I don't think you have recovered from the Escher painting.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035483

Wrong again. He pointed it at the camera and pointed it at the victim.

Pointing it at a camera is not pointing it at the victim - unless you're arguing the camera was the victim.

I argued this about 20 pages ago, while discussing the necessary ingredients to a charge like manslaughter. You didn't get it, that involuntary manslaughter requires either the commission of an unlawful act (such as a death caused by drink-driving) or gross negligence, which is an act where death could predictably ensue from a careless disregard for safety. It is therefore not a simple mistake.

"Nor was it criminal negligence unless it was obvious there was a real risk of serious injury. Since the gun was declared to be safe by someone he ought to have been able to trust that argues against criminal negligence by Baldwin in those circumstances."[/quote]

Armstronglivs wrote:

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035483

Wrong again. He pointed it at the camera and pointed it at the victim.

Pointing it at a camera is not pointing it at the victim - unless you're arguing the camera was the victim.

Okay, I’ll play. How does someone get shot (if it’s acknowledged that there were no ricochet) if a gun is not pointed at them?