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

Armstronglivs wrote:

Ncaa ruler wrote:

Let's get it back track. I think the consensus is that Baldwin is guilty and that Armstronglivs got his degree in a country that hands them out to anyone with a sheep and pig to trade.

That is indeed the consensus of those with no legal qualifications like yourself. Thank you for making it even clearer.

You guys have been going on for months and have yet to address something that you should have thought of like the OJ Simpson criminal trial and civil trial which came to two very different conclusions. He was acquitted of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson (jury nullification) but was subsequently found responsible for the deaths of Goldman and Brown in his civil trial. So was he guilty or was he not guilty?

Ncaa ruler wrote:

Is Rittenhouse innocent? The court decided that there was no crime so he can't be innocent according to you. He also can't be not guilty if there is no crime.

You just keep embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. The court did say there was a crime, which was homicide, but that Rittenhouse was not guilty because he acted in self defense. Furthermore, legally "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".

Baldwin will be found guilty in both. Armstrong will come back here and claim that he was correct.

No. There was no crime of homicide.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That is indeed the consensus of those with no legal qualifications like yourself. Thank you for making it even clearer.

You guys have been going on for months and have yet to address something that you should have thought of like the OJ Simpson criminal trial and civil trial which came to two very different conclusions. He was acquitted of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson (jury nullification) but was subsequently found responsible for the deaths of Goldman and Brown in his civil trial. So was he guilty or was he not guilty?

You have - accidentally - gotten to the nub of it. To the standard of proof required of a criminal trial, which is "beyond reasonable doubt", he was found not guilty. He was therefore acquitted of charges under the criminal law.

However a subsequent civil trial found him guilty according to a lower standard of proof - the "balance of probabilities". That does not - did not - thereby impose a criminal conviction; it couldn't because it was a civil matter. It did however make him liable for the deaths of his victims under the civil law, and thus subject to the imposition of damages.

What that demonstrates is that guilt or innocence depends entirely upon the determination of a court - and it will also depend on the nature of that court. OJ was not a convicted murderer but he was liable under the civil law for the deaths of the victims. The civil law penalties are not those of the criminal law. Guilt does not mean the same thing to different courts. So, in answer to your question, "is he guilty or not guilty?" - he is both.

Armpitstrong wrote:

No. There was no crime of homicide.

If there wasn't he wouldn't have needed an argument of self defense.

Armpitstrong wrote:

Baldwin will be found guilty in both. Armstrong will come back here and claim that he was correct.

A bold claim about Baldwin, when there has been no crime established in respect of either victim and Baldwin hasn't been charged with anything. But you are used to arguing from a position of ignorance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Ncaa ruler wrote:

Is Rittenhouse innocent? The court decided that there was no crime so he can't be innocent according to you. He also can't be not guilty if there is no crime.

You just keep embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. The court did say there was a crime, which was homicide, but that Rittenhouse was not guilty because he acted in self defense.

You're like the Carmine9/Unkle of the legal threads - you convolute so many basic ideas and change your mind so many times that you can't even keep track of how ridiculously inconsistent, hypocritical and wrong you are.

As to the post immediately above, "homicide" is not a crime. Even a FAKE lawyer with a FAKE law degree like yourself should know that. Furthermore, the Rittenhouse court never found or said there was a crime. There was NO predicate finding of a crime. So this statement by you -- "The court did say there was a crime, which was homicide" -- packs an incredible amount of flat out WRONG information into a mere 11 words. Both clauses are flat out WRONG.

Rittenhouse jury verdict.

So if homicide isn't a crime you have to wonder why Rittenhouse was standing trial. You also have to wonder why he had to argue self defense in order to be acquitted. Seems an awful waste of time and energy for something that wasn't a crime.

Hey, FAKE lawyer! Homicide is not a crime. Even your garden variety, middle of the road FAKE lawyer knows that. You even suck at being a FAKE lawyer.

You just added to your already lengthy list of basic and glaring false statements on law (we can recount them, if need be). This, right here by you - "The court did say there was a crime, which was homicide" - is WRONG, fathead. It's double down wango tango wrong. (1) The court NEVER said there was a crime and (2) homicide is not a crime. Double dog wrong - twice as wrong as being wrong once.

What kind of internet jerk makes such basic errors at the same time he spends five pages arguing out-of-context semantics regarding the difference between guilty and not guilty? A pompous FAKE lawyer internet jerk is the correct answer.

I think he and everyone with half a brain here is assuming you are very stupid. Life will not get easier for you. Please don't reproduce.

muhbyad wrote:

I think he and everyone with half a brain here is assuming you are very stupid. Life will not get easier for you. Please don't reproduce.

No sock puppets, Fake lawyer. That's cheating.

We all know you're googling whether homicide is a crime, and trying to figure out how not to look like a FAKE lawyer. That's first year crim law, Boofstereenie!

So if homicide - the killing of another human being - isn't a crime what was Rittenhouse standing trial for? Why did he need to argue self defense in order to be acquitted of something you say wasn't a crime? Try thinking this time.

phony al wrote:

muhbyad wrote:

I think he and everyone with half a brain here is assuming you are very stupid. Life will not get easier for you. Please don't reproduce.

No sock puppets, Fake lawyer. That's cheating.

We all know you're googling whether homicide is a crime, and trying to figure out how not to look like a FAKE lawyer. That's first year crim law, Boofstereenie!

Not me, phony al. So you're wrong about that, too. But it is fun to argue with someone who doesn't have a clue about the law, like you.

You just don't understand law. Justifiable homicide is not illegal. No law was violated which is why he is free.

Big Card wrote:

You just don't understand law. Justifiable homicide is not illegal. No law was violated which is why he is free.

A law was violated, which is why he was tried. Homicide- the killing of a person - is with the rarest exceptions a crime. One of the exceptions is self defense - which is what he had to argue. Without that defense he would have been found guilty of murder. So - yes - homicide is illegal, Homer. Another legally unqualified "expert".

Armstronglivs wrote:

Big Card wrote:

You just don't understand law. Justifiable homicide is not illegal. No law was violated which is why he is free.

A law was violated, which is why he was tried. Homicide- the killing of a person - is with the rarest exceptions a crime. One of the exceptions is self defense - which is what he had to argue. Without that defense he would have been found guilty of murder. So - yes - homicide is illegal, Homer. Another legally unqualified "expert".

Homicide, by definition, is not a crime. That is US law school criminal law class 101. You are a FAKE lawyer.

We can all see that you have googled up your basic legal error by now, and are panicked and trying this "rarest exceptions" bit, as if that somehow made your INCORRECT statement of law okay. It does not. Self defense, execution, euthanasia, war, prevention of harm to other, car crashes, etc. are not "exceptions" they are results of the basic definition of "homicide" that you got WRONG. They are not rare either.

You are too dumb, pompous and fake to realize that the VERY reason that Baldwin (the guy you've spent 40 pages advocating for) is not in jail is precisely because homicide is not a crime. Homicide is not crime, Homer. That is bedrock US criminal law and has been for hundreds of years. You are a FAKE lawyer.

And don't forget part two of your double stupidity in this 11 word phrase -- "The court did say there was a crime, which was homicide." The Rittenhouse court NEVER said there was a crime. You are WRONG, and don't have the slightest clue how criminal (or civil cases) in the US proceed.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Big Card wrote:

You just don't understand law. Justifiable homicide is not illegal. No law was violated which is why he is free.

A law was violated, which is why he was tried. Homicide- the killing of a person - is with the rarest exceptions a crime. One of the exceptions is self defense - which is what he had to argue. Without that defense he would have been found guilty of murder. So - yes - homicide is illegal, Homer. Another legally unqualified "expert".

You have spent maybe 6 months on this and it will amount to nothing. Don't you have something better to do?

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A law was violated, which is why he was tried. Homicide- the killing of a person - is with the rarest exceptions a crime. One of the exceptions is self defense - which is what he had to argue. Without that defense he would have been found guilty of murder. So - yes - homicide is illegal, Homer. Another legally unqualified "expert".

You have spent maybe 6 months on this and it will amount to nothing. Don't you have something better to do?

Agreed. Same goes for the posters arguing with him. This won the award for worst thread of 2021.