Armstronglivs wrote:
I haven't guessed his opinion. I said I'm not interested in it. But since you keep insisting I have I guess you're as stupid as those you claim are "equally stupid".
And yet you seem convinced that people are interested or set any value in your opinion.
AOL Lawyer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I haven't guessed his opinion. I said I'm not interested in it. But since you keep insisting I have I guess you're as stupid as those you claim are "equally stupid".
And yet you seem convinced that people are interested or set any value in your opinion.
No, I don't. An assumption of yours that is evidence again of your stupidity. I simply debate the issues with those here who are mistakenly convinced that Baldwin must have committed a crime. For someone "not interested" in my opinion, you - like so many others - feel compelled to respond. Funny way to show lack of interest.
Armsrong you come across as s miserable guy.
Jon James is really stubborn wrote:
That is a stupid question. If I check if a gun is loaded and then I give it to you and you give it to somebody else who gives it to somebody else who robs a store with the gun and accidentally shoots the clerk how can I be responsible for the gun being unloaded? The armorer checks the gun and then it doesn't leave her site when it is fired. That is how she is responsible. But when she checks it and gives it to somebody who isn't allowed to fire it and it ends up being fired by even another person who isn't allowed to fire it, there is no way for her to know who put the bullet in the gun. The main person in the investigation is the shooter. And regardless if he loaded it, he killed someone with it so he is guilty of murder because the armorer did not check the gun immediately prior to him firing it and she was not present.
Now we've established you have no idea what constitutes murder in law, which requires the intention to kill, which distinguishes it from lesser homicide charges. You are also wrong about the facts of what happened and the role played by the armourer, whose primary responsibility was to ensure the safety of the weapon. She failed to do that.
kebert xela wrote:
Armsrong you come across as s miserable guy.
Because I don't go along with the lynch mob on this thread? I'll take "miserable" over that any time.
Incorrect again. She checked the gun. Baldwin didn't check the gun. Baldwin murdered a person. His behavior was reckless.
Armstronglivs wrote:
kebert xela wrote:
Armsrong you come across as s miserable guy.
Because I don't go along with the lynch mob on this thread? I'll take "miserable" over that any time.
Because you're willing to pretend to think that a gun can shoot something it isn't pointed at just for the sake of being disagreeable.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, I don't. An assumption of yours that is evidence again of your stupidity. I simply debate the issues with those here who are mistakenly convinced that Baldwin must have committed a crime. For someone "not interested" in my opinion, you - like so many others - feel compelled to respond. Funny way to show lack of interest.
Hypocritical argument, people are not replying to you because they are interested in your point of view, they are replying to point out what a dick you are.
AOL Lawyer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, I don't. An assumption of yours that is evidence again of your stupidity. I simply debate the issues with those here who are mistakenly convinced that Baldwin must have committed a crime. For someone "not interested" in my opinion, you - like so many others - feel compelled to respond. Funny way to show lack of interest.
Hypocritical argument, people are not replying to you because they are interested in your point of view, they are replying to point out what a dick you are.
I am merely returning the favour, since none of you have presented what would be considered an argument.
or this: wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Because I don't go along with the lynch mob on this thread? I'll take "miserable" over that any time.
Because you're willing to pretend to think that a gun can shoot something it isn't pointed at just for the sake of being disagreeable.
A gun can shoot something because it is discharged and it has a barrel. That doesn't require that it be "pointed" at anything. That isn't being "disagreeable" - except to those unable to grasp that simple but obvious point. Like you.
Parents be crazy wrote:
Incorrect again. She checked the gun. Baldwin didn't check the gun. Baldwin murdered a person. His behavior was reckless.
She checked the gun - and yet failed to find it was loaded? And firearm safety was her responsibility. Baldwin was entitled to trust she had done her job. He had no intention of killing anyone because he was told the gun was safe. No murder.
How does a gun shoot something that it isn't pointed at? You keep saying that is can something even though it isn't pointed at it but that is physically impossible. Now you are arguing with the laws of physics. A gun can be laying on the ground and a dog bumps into it and turns it so that it is pointed at a person. See how the word is used in the English language? Baldwin pointed it at a woman and he shot and killed her. Those are 3 facts that even he and his lawyer aren't disputing but you are.
She stated that she checked it. He stated that he didn't check it. Maybe somebody loaded it in between so he is guilty for killing a woman.
Parents be crazy wrote:
She stated that she checked it. He stated that he didn't check it. Maybe somebody loaded it in between so he is guilty for killing a woman.
No, he isn't - and no legal expert has said he is. But the law isn't your strong point.
Parents be crazy wrote:
How does a gun shoot something that it isn't pointed at? You keep saying that is can something even though it isn't pointed at it but that is physically impossible. Now you are arguing with the laws of physics. A gun can be laying on the ground and a dog bumps into it and turns it so that it is pointed at a person. See how the word is used in the English language? Baldwin pointed it at a woman and he shot and killed her. Those are 3 facts that even he and his lawyer aren't disputing but you are.
A gun shoots something because it has a barrel - a fact you seem unaware of. It does not need to be "pointed" in order for a bullet to hit an object (or a person). A gun does not point itself - and yet anything in the line of fire may be hit if it discharges. That can happen when a gun is dropped or is simply being played with and accidentally fires. But it is not "pointed" unless it is directed - aimed, in other words - at something. It is the same as if you point at something with your finger or with a stick - you are singling out an object of your attention. It is an intentional act. It cannot be otherwise, or you are not "pointing" at anything. There is nothing in the facts that suggest Baldwin pointed the gun at the victim. That she was hit appears to have been completely accidental, as no one has claimed he aimed at her and nor did he think the gun was loaded, since he was assured it wasn't.
Attorney stated that Baldwin pointed gun at person and pulled trigger on loaded gun, killing her. He also stated that Baldwin was not suppossed to point the gun at her. You have been incorrect on every post that you have made.
"The attorney called Baldwin's actions on set "reckless and irresponsible." He was referring to the actor pointing the gun during a scene rehearsal and pulling the trigger. Dordick claimed Baldwin should not have assumed the gun was safe and checked it himself."
Yes a gun will shoot whatever it is pointed at. Is English your first language? If a gun is laying on a table and you stop in front of the barrel, the gun is pointed at you. I really think that you are from a European country and don't have a perfect grasp on English.
But all of that is irrelevant now that we know Baldwin intentionally aimed the gun at the woman that he killed. We also know that he should have checked the gun because if he had, an innocent woman would be alive. You can't change facts and you can't change history.
Big Card wrote:
Attorney stated that Baldwin pointed gun at person and pulled trigger on loaded gun, killing her. He also stated that Baldwin was not suppossed to point the gun at her. You have been incorrect on every post that you have made.
A claim is not a fact unless proven. Like your argument.
American and proud wrote:
Yes a gun will shoot whatever it is pointed at. Is English your first language? If a gun is laying on a table and you stop in front of the barrel, the gun is pointed at you. I really think that you are from a European country and don't have a perfect grasp on English.
But all of that is irrelevant now that we know Baldwin intentionally aimed the gun at the woman that he killed. We also know that he should have checked the gun because if he had, an innocent woman would be alive. You can't change facts and you can't change history.
And yet he hasn't been charged with murder - and indeed he hasn't been charged with anything. No reputable legal expert has yet claimed he has committed a crime. I guess you are just another moron. Yes - I'm pointing at you.