Armstrong you are in over your head here. Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was “distracted and consistently talking on his cell phone” during gun training on the movie set.
What prosecutors say in the media in regard to criminal cases in general may or may not be interesting. State of NM v. Alec Baldwin, prosecutors are, "Whistling Past the Graveyard." A Baldwin is rich. If this case makes it past Pre-Trial, prosecutors will have their hands full. No doubt A Baldwin is putting a Dream Team together.
Armstrong you are in over your head here. Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was “distracted and consistently talking on his cell phone” during gun training on the movie set.
What prosecutors say in the media in regard to criminal cases in general may or may not be interesting. State of NM v. Alec Baldwin, prosecutors are, "Whistling Past the Graveyard." A Baldwin is rich. If this case makes it past Pre-Trial, prosecutors will have their hands full. No doubt A Baldwin is putting a Dream Team together.
The prosecutors are not “saying this in the media.” This is in the charging documents.
What prosecutors say in the media in regard to criminal cases in general may or may not be interesting. State of NM v. Alec Baldwin, prosecutors are, "Whistling Past the Graveyard." A Baldwin is rich. If this case makes it past Pre-Trial, prosecutors will have their hands full. No doubt A Baldwin is putting a Dream Team together.
The prosecutors are not “saying this in the media.” This is in the charging documents.
Prosecutors do not want this case, at least A Baldwin's case to get to trial.
No, everyone is aware that charges were only filed yesterday (1/31/23), and that whatever judge was assigned the case has not seen any kind of motion to dismiss yet.
Anyone reading this thread is also well aware of your new and childish strawman/red herring/squirrel strategy regarding your previous emphatic and unequivocal statements that "Baldwin will not be charged with anything" and "Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence." Moving those goalposts like you are trying to do is an enormous task when you set them in reinforced concrete the way you did.
My arguments were chiefly against the chorus here who claimed he would be found guilty of murder.
No, they were not. That is a lie that was already exposed on page 51 at post 1016 (and other posts). Your arguments were almost all against the point that Baldwin could be charged with some degree of manslaughter. In fact, your arguments were often against mere facts that weren't in Baldwin's favor -- no legal charges had to be mentioned at all to provoke your loud stupidity.
You were continuously and consistently emphatic that there was no way that Baldwin could be charged under any legal theory at all ("Baldwin will not be charged with anything"), and insulted anyone who even suggested otherwise ("Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."). Denying all this makes you look more buffoonish than ever.
Armwrong wrote:
The prosecutors have yet to convince a judge there is enough evidence to go to trial.
Yes, as noted above, the charges were only filed two days ago. There are no pending motions for a dismissal on day two of the case. There hasn't even been an appearance by Baldwin yet (it is currently scheduled for 2/24/23).
Just so YOU know, because you appear completely ignorant regarding criminal law and procedure, motions by defendants to dismiss charges are rarely successful. Judges are very reluctant to dismiss criminal complaints and charges if they are filed with recitations of supporting facts, as is usually the case. You really think a judge is going to dismiss this case with all the facts, witnesses, evidence and legal theories laid out in that 10 page Statement of Probable Cause? Have you even read it yet? Do you even know what it is?
You pulled a trigger and shot someone. You did not check before?? On you.
Gun owners, please chime in.
As the State of New Mexico says in the Statement of Probable Cause (page 4-5): "BALDWIN directly pointed a firearm at HUTCHINS and SOUZA. Whether guided by [REED's] directions or not, BALDWIN knew the first rule of gun safety is never point a gun at someone you don't intend shooting. In addition, always assume a gun is loaded. . . . In addition, if BALDWIN had not pointed the gun at HUTCHINS and SOUZA, this tragedy would not have occurred."
As a gun owner myself, I think Baldwin had to be out of his freaking mind to be pointing the gun at people, whether someone else told him it was okay or not. Just a reckless, idiotic thing to do.
But be careful suggesting these are issues that only gun owners have specialized knowledge of. Most people, whether they've ever even held a gun or not, know how dangerous it is to point a gun at someone. I've seen FlagPol and a few other liberals suggest that only NRA types could believe Baldwin is criminally liable -- the absolute perverse irony being that the liberals who are saying guns are a dangerous societal hazard and shouldn't even be kept in people's houses, are the ones now arguing that Baldwin is not liable for actually shooting someone because, unlike NRA members, Baldwin wouldn't appreciate how incredibly dangerous guns are when you point them at people. Good grief.
They know how dumb Baldwin is. And I guess they are consistent becuase they blame the gun whenever a criminal shoots someone. It is the gun's fault. It is only the fault of the shooter if it is a police officer.
As the State of New Mexico says in the Statement of Probable Cause (page 4-5): "BALDWIN directly pointed a firearm at HUTCHINS and SOUZA. Whether guided by [REED's] directions or not, BALDWIN knew the first rule of gun safety is never point a gun at someone you don't intend shooting. In addition, always assume a gun is loaded. . . . In addition, if BALDWIN had not pointed the gun at HUTCHINS and SOUZA, this tragedy would not have occurred."
As a gun owner myself, I think Baldwin had to be out of his freaking mind to be pointing the gun at people, whether someone else told him it was okay or not. Just a reckless, idiotic thing to do.
But be careful suggesting these are issues that only gun owners have specialized knowledge of. Most people, whether they've ever even held a gun or not, know how dangerous it is to point a gun at someone. I've seen FlagPol and a few other liberals suggest that only NRA types could believe Baldwin is criminally liable -- the absolute perverse irony being that the liberals who are saying guns are a dangerous societal hazard and shouldn't even be kept in people's houses, are the ones now arguing that Baldwin is not liable for actually shooting someone because, unlike NRA members, Baldwin wouldn't appreciate how incredibly dangerous guns are when you point them at people. Good grief.
Whoever wrote that probably cause statement for the state is a moron. Have they never watched any TV or movies? Every other show has people getting shot - how would you film anything if you couldn't point a gun at someone? The whole point is that it's supposed to be safe to point those guns at the actors because the gun/ammo is fake.
What I want to know is why they use a gun capable of firing real ammo. Why not use fake guns, or something that's been modified so it can't possibly fire real bullets?
As the State of New Mexico says in the Statement of Probable Cause (page 4-5): "BALDWIN directly pointed a firearm at HUTCHINS and SOUZA. Whether guided by [REED's] directions or not, BALDWIN knew the first rule of gun safety is never point a gun at someone you don't intend shooting. In addition, always assume a gun is loaded. . . . In addition, if BALDWIN had not pointed the gun at HUTCHINS and SOUZA, this tragedy would not have occurred."
As a gun owner myself, I think Baldwin had to be out of his freaking mind to be pointing the gun at people, whether someone else told him it was okay or not. Just a reckless, idiotic thing to do.
But be careful suggesting these are issues that only gun owners have specialized knowledge of. Most people, whether they've ever even held a gun or not, know how dangerous it is to point a gun at someone. I've seen FlagPol and a few other liberals suggest that only NRA types could believe Baldwin is criminally liable -- the absolute perverse irony being that the liberals who are saying guns are a dangerous societal hazard and shouldn't even be kept in people's houses, are the ones now arguing that Baldwin is not liable for actually shooting someone because, unlike NRA members, Baldwin wouldn't appreciate how incredibly dangerous guns are when you point them at people. Good grief.
Whoever wrote that probably cause statement for the state is a moron. Have they never watched any TV or movies? Every other show has people getting shot - how would you film anything if you couldn't point a gun at someone? The whole point is that it's supposed to be safe to point those guns at the actors because the gun/ammo is fake.
What I want to know is why they use a gun capable of firing real ammo. Why not use fake guns, or something that's been modified so it can't possibly fire real bullets?
From the questions you are asking, I can tell you did not read the Statement of Probable Cause that you say was written by morons.
I'm not a film maker, so I don't know the answer to your rhetorical question "Every other show has people getting shot - how would you film anything if you couldn't point a gun at someone?" My guess is that, similar to fight scenes where people appear to punch and beat each other, film makers have techniques and equipment that make it appear as if someone is pointing a gun at someone else, even though they aren't.
But I don't know that for sure. I'm just speculating on that. I don't know how they do it. Do you?
I was arguing against those insistent that what Baldwin did was intentional homicide. I doubted he would be charged with anything. That he has been charged with involuntary homicide has surprised me as much as it has many other legal commentators. They agree the chances of a conviction are slim.
However the case itself doesn't interest you. You are obsessed with what I say and post nothing else. It is the compliment an inferior intellect pays to its superior.
I was arguing against those insistent that what Baldwin did was intentional homicide. I doubted he would be charged with anything. That he has been charged with involuntary homicide has surprised me as much as it has many other legal commentators. They agree the chances of a conviction are slim.
However the case itself doesn't interest you. You are obsessed with what I say and post nothing else. It is the compliment an inferior intellect pays to its superior.
You doubted he would be charged with anything. As such any future opinion of yours means squat. Please refrain from any future commenting because your opinions have been proven to be wrong. Just stop commenting. Thanks in advance. Maybe go to the song thread.
"As a gun owner myself, I think Baldwin had to be out of his freaking mind to be pointing the gun at people, whether someone else told him it was okay or not. Just a reckless, idiotic thing to do."(quote)
I was arguing against those insistent that what Baldwin did was intentional homicide. I doubted he would be charged with anything. That he has been charged with involuntary homicide has surprised me as much as it has many other legal commentators. They agree the chances of a conviction are slim.
However the case itself doesn't interest you. You are obsessed with what I say and post nothing else. It is the compliment an inferior intellect pays to its superior.
You doubted he would be charged with anything. As such any future opinion of yours means squat. Please refrain from any future commenting because your opinions have been proven to be wrong. Just stop commenting. Thanks in advance. Maybe go to the song thread.
Sally, you have been wrong about everything you have ever posted. By your argument, you should have stopped posting years ago.
You doubted he would be charged with anything. As such any future opinion of yours means squat. Please refrain from any future commenting because your opinions have been proven to be wrong. Just stop commenting. Thanks in advance. Maybe go to the song thread.
Sally, you have been wrong about everything you have ever posted. By your argument, you should have stopped posting years ago.
Actually I have been wrong a couple of times and admitted as much. Have you? And I don't mean to be a jerk - you seem like a nice person.
I'm still waiting for news of his conviction, since it appears most here can't tell the difference between charges that are allegations and those that are proven at trial before a jury. The opinions of threads like this - 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest" - don't count.
I was arguing against those insistent that what Baldwin did was intentional homicide.
Nope. You are lying again. Now you are lying about lying about lying. See above ("Baldwin will not be charged with anything" and "Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence" and "Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."). That's the greatest hits, but there is plenty more back in the thread. You are not only a FAKE lawyer, but also a compulsive LIAR.
I was arguing against those insistent that what Baldwin did was intentional homicide.
Nope. You are lying again. Now you are lying about lying about lying. See above ("Baldwin will not be charged with anything" and "Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence" and "Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."). That's the greatest hits, but there is plenty more back in the thread. You are not only a FAKE lawyer, but also a compulsive LIAR.
You cherrypick what I have said while ignoring the main points. It is, as I have said, an obsession of yours. But your tantrum never ceases. Your inability to accept someone has a difference of point of view knows no bounds. I guess if you were a lawyer in court you would be shouting at the top of your voice when confronted with argument you don't like. You would likely be removed in a straitjacket.
"As a gun owner myself, I think Baldwin had to be out of his freaking mind to be pointing the gun at people, whether someone else told him it was okay or not. Just a reckless, idiotic thing to do."(quote)
You haven't seen many Westerns, have you?
C'mon, Phony Al, tell us what happens on movie sets. And not just Westerns, but crime movies and war movies. They never point a gun at anyone they are depicted as shooting, right?
But in your strange little world, they are all committing criminal negligence.