Jump to content

Alec Baldwin's Manslaughter Case Dismissed by Judge


Social Media

Recommended Posts

In about 5 years when things cool off you notice Baldwin will be doing an unusual ad or having a very strong, perhaps out of place, opinion on a political topic… and youll know why, and start to understand how the world really works

Edited by Robert Paulson
  • Confused 5
  • Sad 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Good it was a horrible incident and the one directly responsible for the gun has been held accountable my condolences to the Hutchins family 

 

Well, the armourer was obviously culpable through negligence; but so was Baldwin, he had a duty of care to make sure the gun was not loaded with live ammunition before pulling the trigger. However, very few people that understand how things work in the US, thought that he would ever be convicted ….. $$$$$$

 

 

  • Confused 5
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The victims family should sue the prosecutor and the Sheriff for incompetence. I am not a lawyer but the prosection has a duty to "disclose" this to the defense.   You learn this in the first months on the job.  Pure incompetence.  Now Baldwin can revive his faltering career as an "inocent man who was the victim of a police consipracy". I see a Netflix limited series in the works.  Great acting jobs by Baldwin and Hilaria while they were in court.

Edited by sqwakvfr
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Well, the armourer was obviously culpable through negligence; but so was Baldwin, he had a duty of care to make sure the gun was not loaded with live ammunition before pulling the trigger. However, very few people that understand how things work in the US, thought that he would ever be convicted ….. $$$$$$

 

 

Baldwin is equally as culpable as the armourer considering he knew that real weapons were being used on the set. Baldwin broke the 'first rule' of weapons handling, that is to physically check that the weapon is not loaded as soon as he picks it up or has it handed to him - in the case of the person handing him the weapon, that person is also responsible to show him that the safety catch is on and the weapon is unloaded - as for his BS comment that he didn't physically pull the trigger... he pulled the trigger!  

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Once again money rules!

He was not guilty. The film hired a gun expert. She is guilty. Just because you are a star does not mean anything that goes wrong is your fault. This case should have never been brought by the prosecutors. I believe the prosecutors brought this case to bolster their name recognition and career and this case had nothing to do with justice. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Judge Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case, citing misconduct by police and prosecutors.

Oh that has to a classic in the annals of American jurisprudence.

 

It's not often that justice is so dramatically served..

 

As for the case itself, I assume it was one of those cases by which a prosecutor wanted to make a name for themselves by prosecuting a famous person. If so they certainly have, but not in the way intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

This was obvious the minute the judge ruled the fact that he was a producer of the movie was not relevant.

 

Left wing celebs above the law. 

BS

 

Who brought ammo to the set? 

Who loaded the gun? 

 

It is as easy as that

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Wake Up1 said:

Completely wrong. You are allowed to rely on an armory expert who verifies the safety of the gun. He is 100 percent not guilt and was simply a target because he is rich and famous

 

Nonsense, would you point a handgun at someone, or your own head, and pull the trigger simply on the assumption that logically it should not contain a live round ? …. he unquestionably has some  culpability for negligent use of a firearm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, HK MacPhooey said:

Baldwin is equally as culpable as the armourer considering he knew that real weapons were being used on the set.

 

I don't recall ever hearing that he was involved with, or even aware of staff members target shooting on the property with real ammo.  I'm not saying that's false, and I quit following a week or 2 after it happened.  But during the time I did follow it, I was looking for a definitive statement.  Do you have a link?  Not doubting you.  Just curious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Nonsense, would you point a handgun at someone, or your own head, and pull the trigger simply on the assumption that logically it should not contain a live round ? …. he unquestionably has some  culpability for negligent use of a firearm.

 

 

First thing I do when handed a gun, is to make sure it is not loaded, and I would never point a gun at someone, because I have been trained with weapons since I was 12. 

 

Still I asume the gun as a movie prop was supposed to be pointed at someone for a take? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

BS

 

Who brought ammo to the set? 

Who loaded the gun? 

 

It is as easy as that

 

Who pointed the gun at the help and pulled the trigger without checking it? 

 

Who hired the person who loaded the gun?

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

First thing I do when handed a gun, is to make sure it is not loaded, and I would never point a gun at someone, because I have been trained with weapons since I was 12. 

 

Still I asume the gun as a movie prop was supposed to be pointed at someone for a take? 

 

I have received the same training although at a later age.

 

However, the gun was not a prop, it was a real firearm and everyone on set knew that; and I don’t think it was a take, I believe it was just a look at lighting and camera angles; no need to point it at anyone, and certainly no need to pull the trigger.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could accept him being found not guilty by a jury.

 

I would disagree but after OJ I wouldn't be shocked.

 

But case dismissed by the judge? Wow.

 

The serf got 18 months to protect the elite. Blame the low hanging fruit. Americans should refrain from criticising Thai courts from now on. Same same. Banana republics. 

 

 

  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Who pointed the gun at the help and pulled the trigger without checking it? 

 

Who hired the person who loaded the gun?

 

As I understand the case was dismissed because of witheld of evidence 

 

Im done, nothing more to add, than no matter what, there where people who had responsibillity of the gun, and the gun was not supposed to be loaded with live ammo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I have received the same training although at a later age.

 

However, the gun was not a prop, it was a real firearm and everyone on set knew that; and I don’t think it was a take, I believe it was just a look at lighting and camera angles; no need to point it at anyone, and certainly no need to pull the trigger.

 

 

Every detail have to be checked even reflections from the gun in the correct light and angles when making a a movie. Other people was responsible for the ammo and the gun was loaded. My last comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I have received the same training although at a later age.

 

However, the gun was not a prop, it was a real firearm and everyone on set knew that; and I don’t think it was a take, I believe it was just a look at lighting and camera angles; no need to point it at anyone, and certainly no need to pull the trigger.

 

 

 

Exactly. It wasn't a take. The girl shot wasn't even an actress on the movie.

 

He picked up the gun from the person he hired without checking it, aimed it and fired it at the help. She died.

 

Case dismissed by the judge. 

 

Democrat supporter and donor. 

 

Deeply indebted Banana Republic ruled by a cadaver.

  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...