Originally Posted by :
A judge in New Mexico dismissed the case against Alec Baldwin on Friday after finding that the state had withheld evidence that could have shed light on how live rounds got onto a film set where the cinematographer was fatally shot.
The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning that the prosecution of Mr. Baldwin is over. If he had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter, Mr. Baldwin would have faced up to 18 months in prison.
“There is no way for the court to right this wrong,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in court as Mr. Baldwin wept.
Idiot fucking armor got 18 months lol. Baldwin got the equivalent of a not guilty verdict and cant be tried again. Shitty ass prosecutor being scummy. What a surprise. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Money is the best defense a person can have.
Money didn't save Murdaugh. It didn't stop Trump from getting convicted. But I get it. Having money for defense certainly helps. But it sounds to me like the dumb prosecutor was a bigger factor the Baldwin's money. [Reply]
The prosecution is a joke. This should have never went to trial in the first place before the blundering idiots shot themselves in the foot sorry for the figure of speech. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bwana:
Yep, you get it. If that would have been most of us, we would be in jail.
What what am I missing? How was Baldwin even charged? What is he supposed to do? Hes an actor and has no fuckin idea. Uses the prop at the whim of the staff. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
What what am I missing? How was Baldwin even charged? What is he supposed to do? Hes an actor and has no ****in idea. Uses the prop at the whim of the staff.
In that situation I would check the gun to make sure it was loaded with blanks. Blanks and live ammo have a distinctly different look. I'm sure I was brought up in a lot different environment than Badwin. I'm very big on gun safety. I assume everything I touch is loaded, until I check it myself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
What what am I missing? How was Baldwin even charged? What is he supposed to do? Hes an actor and has no ****in idea. Uses the prop at the whim of the staff.
He was the the producer, or otherwise known as the guy at the top. He was also the actor that held the weapon, or otherwise known as the guy at the bottom. As the guy at the top he was responsible for everything on the set. If the armorer was a problem, it was also his problem. As the guy at the bottom, he pointed the weapon and pulled the trigger.
It strikes me as the same kind of thing as committing perjury by making 2 different assertions that cannot both be true. Unless I'm mistaken, the prosecution doesn't have to prove which one is false, but simply that the 2 cannot both be true. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
He was the the producer, or otherwise known as the guy at the top. He was also the actor that held the weapon, or otherwise known as the guy at the bottom. As the guy at the top he was responsible for everything on the set. If the armorer was a problem, it was also his problem. As the guy at the bottom, he pointed the weapon and pulled the trigger.
It strikes me as the same kind of thing as committing perjury by making 2 different assertions that cannot both be true. Unless I'm mistaken, the prosecution doesn't have to prove which one is false, but simply that the 2 cannot both be true.
He has a weapons director or prop director or some shit. It's not really his responsibility to be honest if he hired someone. I see no reason any gun near a movie set should ever had live rounds. He has absolutely no expectation for it to have anything but blanks in it.
Perhaps some sort of wrongful death suit at the absolute worst but I dont see what he did wrong, especially in the criminals sense. [Reply]
I don't see how Alec Baldwin did anything different than every other film in history where guns are involved and people did NOT die. OH he's in charge though so let's send him to jail
what is this, the Empire Strikes Back? It's nonsense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PHOG:
Didn't he state he didn't pull the trigger? How is that even possible? IRRC
I vaguely remember that now. He said he was holding the gun and it just went off or something?
That's kind of a questionable defense. I think you have to charge the guy who was holding the gun when the gun killed someone, even if he claims that "people don't kill people, guns kill people". Otherwise, every hoodlum in South Chicago gets to walk because, hey, they were just holding the gun and it fired on its own. The jury can then decide if it was an accident or whatever. But I think you need to charge the person just to figure out what happened. [Reply]
