|
Post by misterjr on Jul 13, 2024 10:56:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gardawg on Jul 13, 2024 10:57:07 GMT -5
it was all about getting headlines in the first place ...
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Jul 13, 2024 11:00:22 GMT -5
The prosecutor needs to be prosecuted.
|
|
|
Post by One Man Gang on Jul 13, 2024 11:59:57 GMT -5
it was all about getting headlines in the first place ... "Trumped" up for a purpose by the media you say?
|
|
|
Post by tag on Jul 13, 2024 14:37:25 GMT -5
So the rabid anti-gun nut who negligently killed someone with a gun gets away with it. Imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Jul 13, 2024 14:41:03 GMT -5
So the rabid anti-gun nut who negligently killed someone with a gun gets away with it. Imagine that. I didn’t think that he would ever be convicted but the hypocrisy of antigun nuts that make violent movies involving guns is something I have always wondered about.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 13, 2024 14:48:00 GMT -5
Its a strange situation. Jeopardy (for criminal Double Jeopardy purposes) attaches once a jury is sworn, so if something goes wrong at that point there either has to be a mistrial (starts the case over) or a dismissal (case cannot be brought again).
I presume this was considered a Brady violation. Means the State failed to turn over evidence that could be exculpatory. Brady violations before trial are cured by turning over the evidence and continuing the case to give defense time to digest the evidence and explore its implications. Brady violations discovered during or after trial can result in a dismissal. But dismissal is such an extreme option, one that may deny justice to a victim against a guilty defendant, that it isn’t suppose to be granted lightly.
I would be curious to know if the defense truly didn’t know of these other bullets prior to trial. Media reports say the bullets were turned in March by a family member of the co-Defendant who got convicted. I bet their defense teams talked. This might have been a technical legal “gotcha, you didn’t tell us about it [but we actually already knew and thus we knew to plan the ‘gotcha’.”
I have always been a bit skeptical of this case. If Baldwin’s job isn’t to load the gun, and if he was told the gun was safe, is he really criminally liable because someone else put a hot gun in his hand? More shady is the assertion he didn’t pull the trigger. That’s probably a lie.
He should still loose his shirt financially from this. It shows his low character that he’s not emptying his bank account to compensate the victim’s family civilly.
|
|
|
Post by gardawg on Jul 13, 2024 14:48:50 GMT -5
So the rabid anti-gun nut who negligently killed someone with a gun gets away with it. Imagine that. I didn’t think that he would ever be convicted but the hypocrisy of antigun nuts that make violent movies involving guns is something I have always wondered about. it never puzzled me ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Jul 13, 2024 15:28:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 13, 2024 16:22:50 GMT -5
So, I just got done watching the hearing, you can see it here:
For those who don't want to sift through seven hours of video, the prosecutor taking the stand (having called herself and her co-prosecutor resigning earlier that day), followed not long thereafter by the judge dismissing the case, can be found here:
Completely fascinating. I'd love Bullfrog's take, but it appears to be a good dismissal to me. Baldwin's lawyer (Spiro) needs a better shirt collar, too.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Jul 13, 2024 16:30:42 GMT -5
Something just wasn’t right about the charges and the way the trial came to this resolution. Just odd
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Jul 13, 2024 16:33:59 GMT -5
Regardless of the outcome nobody should pull a trigger on a gun directly aimed at someone even if it were “blanks”. He is negligent but probably not criminally.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 13, 2024 16:54:54 GMT -5
So, I just got done watching the hearing, you can see it here: For those who don't want to sift through seven hours of video, the prosecutor taking the stand (having called herself and her co-prosecutor resigning earlier that day), followed not long thereafter by the judge dismissing the case, can be found here: Completely fascinating. I'd love Bullfrog's take, but it appears to be a good dismissal to me. Baldwin's lawyer (Spiro) needs a better shirt collar, too. I’m not saying it isn’t a righteous dismissal for the legal issue. I don’t know enough about the evidence in question to have an opinion as to whether defense successfully conned the judge, or whether the prosecutor really did sit on, hide, or sloppily neglect important evidence. Its just odd. Usually Brady violations where the State hid or was sloppy in disclosing evidence come out after the trial and that’s when a case will get overturned with prejudice. At that point, you’re usually dealing with a Defendant who has been in prison under a conviction after trial.
|
|
|
Post by gardawg on Jul 13, 2024 17:28:34 GMT -5
Regardless of the outcome nobody should pull a trigger on a gun directly aimed at someone even if it were “blanks”. He is negligent but probably not criminally. they were making a movie ... not everything is CGI yet
|
|
|
Post by jmarkb on Jul 13, 2024 19:04:48 GMT -5
I didn’t think that he would ever be convicted but the hypocrisy of antigun nuts that make violent movies involving guns is something I have always wondered about. it never puzzled me ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ He absolutely pulled the trigger. Single action revolvers don't just go off by themselves. And, he should have checked the gun as soon as it was handed to him. I don't care how many people told him it wasn't loaded. That's one of the first Gun Ten Commandment's.
|
|