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

phony al wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

"Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred."

Maybe someone hacked your account and posted that? Go with that?

You quoted one sentence, you moron, and left out the rest of my comment about negligence. I had also discussed that previously in the thread, as negligence also pertains to manslaughter. But you are simply stick in a rut from which you can't extricate yourself and reiterate the same brainless garbage post after post when you understand none of the issues.

seikosha wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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?

"Pointing" suggests the gun is aimed - which is an intentional action. A gun can be discharged unintentionally or without being aimed at anyone in particular and yet wound or kill by accident - by pure chance. This has occurred in numerous gun incidents. If Baldwin was practising a "draw" action, as has been claimed, he wasn't "pointing" it at anyone. Furthermore, the discharge of the gun was unintentional as Baldwin had been told it was unarmed. He wasn't trying to shoot anything or anyone - or even to fire the gun - since he would have understood from what he had been told that there were no bullets (or blanks, for that matter) in the weapon.

Armstronglivs wrote:

phony al wrote:

"Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred."

Maybe someone hacked your account and posted that? Go with that?

You quoted one sentence, you moron, and left out the rest of my comment about negligence. I had also discussed that previously in the thread, as negligence also pertains to manslaughter. But you are simply stick in a rut from which you can't extricate yourself and reiterate the same brainless garbage post after post when you understand none of the issues.

I quoted one sentence because all that is needed to recite the correct legal standard is one sentence, and the one sentence you pompously typed was demonstrably wrong on its face.

This: "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." is WRONG. Flat out WRONG, whether its surrounded by ten contrary, qualifying sentences or none (as is the case here).

Your erroneous statement of law has been pointed out to you several times now, and you have completely failed to support your continuing, delusional or false belief that it was and is correct.

You are now pretending there was some unrecited context to your false statement. You are not only WRONG again, you are a disingenuous liar. Your post, on page 29 of this thread at 11:51 EST on 10/25/2021, recites in full:

"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. Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."

THAT is the context. You were clearly arguing that actions constituting manslaughter must be illegal in and of themselves for there to be manslaughter. You even typed a tautological and completely irrelevant example of your bogus statement of law ("Practising [sic] part in a film role does not constitute an unlawful act"). Your example PROVES you believed (and apparently still believe) that "Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred." You are WRONG.

And the irony of you calling another poster a "drongo" who lacks "a grasp of the law" is there for everyone viewing this thread to see, Fake Lawyer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

seikosha wrote:

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?

"Pointing" suggests the gun is aimed - which is an intentional action. A gun can be discharged unintentionally or without being aimed at anyone in particular and yet wound or kill by accident - by pure chance. This has occurred in numerous gun incidents. If Baldwin was practising a "draw" action, as has been claimed, he wasn't "pointing" it at anyone. Furthermore, the discharge of the gun was unintentional as Baldwin had been told it was unarmed. He wasn't trying to shoot anything or anyone - or even to fire the gun - since he would have understood from what he had been told that there were no bullets (or blanks, for that matter) in the weapon.

It's long been established guns aren't toys. They are a tool designed for killing humans. That's the reason for their invention.

It has also been long established that if you pull a trigger on a gun and it goes, BANG, you, the trigger puller own the out come. Nobody else. Just you. There is no, but, but, but, somebody told me it'd be ok. No, you own it. Nobody else. Again, a gun is not a toy. It was invented to kill people. And everyone on the planet who can read knows this.

What is the point of the last several pages of you idiots arguing back and forth about nothing?

your parents wrote:

What is the point of the last several pages of you idiots arguing back and forth about nothing?

Listen Mr. Smarty Pants, even nothing is something. The dictionary definition of nothing is, "Not a thing." But the word is printed in a dictionary. So does nothing exist or doesn't it?

Anyway, to answer your question, I like playing point/counter point with armstrong. He's a fun foil.

I think the gun just went off. He's liberal right? It fell into baldwins hand and went off. Guns kill people not people, unless it's a cop or a boyfriend, then it's them. Or he/him/it/them/they? forgot the correct not sexist pronoun. Wait what sex is a gun? Male right?

Like many morons here, you think by cherry-picking a post for one sentence you can accurately reflect the entire career comment. Especially if you put it in "bold". As I had said in the post you selectively quoted, negligence is also a factor to be taken into account for criminal charges i.e. manslaughter, to ensue - and I had also said that previously in the thread. Involuntary manslaughter can include either - or both - factors - which anyone with a grasp of basic English might have understood from my post. But you don't have that grasp - of anything. It was you who tried to argue that a "mistake" is sufficient for involuntary manslaughter. You were - are - wrong. That was my point. But you certainly present yourself as someone who can't correct himself when shown to be in error. Your posts against me are mere deflection. But keep bashing your head against the wall, Google Lawyer.

No criminal charges will ensue without intent or an unlawful act or gross negligence.

HappyJack wrote:

your parents wrote:

What is the point of the last several pages of you idiots arguing back and forth about nothing?

Listen Mr. Smarty Pants, even nothing is something. The dictionary definition of nothing is, "Not a thing." But the word is printed in a dictionary. So does nothing exist or doesn't it?

Anyway, to answer your question, I like playing point/counter point with armstrong. He's a fun foil.

A "unicorn" is printed in a dictionary. So that proves it exists? "Nothing" is a word that merely describes the absence of existence. Like the absence of logic in your argument. There is "nothing" in it.

It is certain that Baldwin will be charged. It is certain that Armstrong argues with facts. Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger killing them. Armstrong argues that he didn't point it at her which means that the bullet curved. He argues that the gun fired accidentally. He argues that it was loaded. He argues and argues.

hire the guy wrote:

It is certain that Baldwin will be charged. It is certain that Armstrong argues with facts. Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger killing them. Armstrong argues that he didn't point it at her which means that the bullet curved. He argues that the gun fired accidentally. He argues that it was loaded. He argues and argues.

But notwithstanding, you have understood none of it. Wrong. About everything. But you have plenty of company amongst the right wing dunces this thread has attracted.

"Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger killing them."

Are you calling Baldwin a liar? You are the only person in the world who seems to be disagreeing with the facts that the parties are stating and the authorities have confirmed. You have lost all credibility.

Nope. You weren't cherry picked. Once again, here is your ENTIRE post, fake lawyer:

"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. Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."

You made a similar erroneous statements earlier, which further shows your erroneous legal statement was not taken out of context - it was your firm belief, despite being completely and demonstrably incorrect. Here is your similar erroneous legal statement:

"You don't know what involuntary manslaughter is. It isn't simply a mistake but a killing that results from breaking the law."

Twice you were proven a legal idiot and a fake lawyer. It was only AFTER your glaring legal error was pointed out to you by at least three other posters, that you LATER backtracked and tried to pretend you had meant criminal negligence all along. You have failed in that remedial endeavor.

Nope. Never did. You have now compounded your embarrassing legal errors by reciting a falsehood.

The involuntary manslaughter legal standard in question is whether Baldwin acted "without due caution and circumspection." Myself and several others were the ones who informed YOU of that.

Those are the facts and they are uncontroverted. You have been adjudicated as a fake lawyer and a liar. Let judgment be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It isn't your field of law - that explains it. Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence. Crimes require intent. There was no intent. He was in a scene rehearsal. Negligence requires a failure to observe a duty of care. The negligence wasn't his. He was given a firearm that he was assured was not armed.

I don’t know the legal standard or duty of care required in New Mexico, but I am a lawyer and you have written so much factual inaccuracy about the law in this thread. If you want any modicum of credibility, please state your legal background/bar admission. If you’re not in fact a legal expert, which is my strong suspicion, please refrain from making wild suppositions about what the law does or doesn’t say/mean. I am not an expert in civil engineering so I don’t provide my useless opinion on threads about bridge design, and I certainly don’t post about 50 messages in the same thread raving about some subject matter I’m clueless about. For some reason there are always a few clowns like yourself who think they know and understand the law better than actual lawyers despite having no formal legal training. Watching a few Law & Order does not mean you suddenly know all about criminal law.

So I ask again, WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL BACKGROUND?

And even what you just wrote, “crimes require intent.” Completely not true. That is a GENERAL rule, but there are many exceptions, and there are crimes that do not even require negligence (e.g., statutory rape in some states is a strict liability crime).

Armstronglivs wrote:

HappyJack wrote:

Listen Mr. Smarty Pants, even nothing is something. The dictionary definition of nothing is, "Not a thing." But the word is printed in a dictionary. So does nothing exist or doesn't it?

Anyway, to answer your question, I like playing point/counter point with armstrong. He's a fun foil.

A "unicorn" is printed in a dictionary. So that proves it exists? "Nothing" is a word that merely describes the absence of existence. Like the absence of logic in your argument. There is "nothing" in it.

Yes, since the definition of a "unicorn" has been defined and illustrations of "unicorns" appear world wide only the most thickheaded amongst us would deny their "existence."

The same with rainbows. Do they exist? We've all seen them. But I've never touched one. Nor do I know anyone else who has. Have you? Are rainbows a real physical thing? Everyone can see them the same as we can see "unicorns" in our minds eye. But can we touch either? No.

Also, zero is a number that has no meaning. Zero means nothing. but mathematicians continue to use it because it has meaning to them.

Sometimes nothing means something to someone sometimes. Try not to let your brain turn into a brick and try thinking outside of your cranial universe sometime. "Let The Sun Shine In."

Phony Al, I raised negligence in my post discussing involuntary manslaughter, but your attention span didn't extend that far. I had also discussed it before then. You think by writing endless posts saying the same dumb thing again and again you can correctly tell me what I think. No more than you can correctly understand any of the issues. So has Baldwin been charged yet with manslaughter?

After that "argument" I guess the dictionary needs to correct its definition of a unicorn as a "mythical" beast. The existence of a word does not prove the existence of what it purports to describe. Let's try "dragon" shall we, or "centaur"? And of course "nothing" means the opposite of existence.