Opening Statements in Alec Baldwin involuntary manslaughter trial
| razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/10/24 | | Provocative Mildly Autistic Location | 07/10/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Onyx Roast Beef Space | 07/10/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/10/24 | | Razzle Plaza Stock Car | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | Galvanic rehab tattoo | 07/11/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/10/24 | | adventurous shitlib | 07/10/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/10/24 | | adventurous shitlib | 07/11/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/10/24 | | Submissive skinny woman | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Ruby hairless private investor | 07/10/24 | | Spruce Candlestick Maker Mad-dog Skullcap | 07/11/24 | | Bateful messiness travel guidebook | 07/12/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/10/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | Spruce Candlestick Maker Mad-dog Skullcap | 07/11/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/11/24 | | Bateful messiness travel guidebook | 07/12/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/13/24 | | Bateful messiness travel guidebook | 07/13/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/13/24 | | Provocative Mildly Autistic Location | 07/10/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Electric theater fortuitous meteor | 07/10/24 | | Stubborn masturbator institution | 07/10/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | Histrionic internet-worthy jap | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/10/24 | | Ruby hairless private investor | 07/10/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/10/24 | | violent wine toilet seat | 07/10/24 | | Ruby hairless private investor | 07/10/24 | | henna motley people who are hurt | 07/11/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | Frisky mustard chapel | 07/10/24 | | zombie-like university | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/11/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | Abnormal maize black woman | 07/10/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | fantasy-prone area | 07/11/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | chartreuse contagious background story | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | Bateful messiness travel guidebook | 07/12/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | Electric theater fortuitous meteor | 07/10/24 | | Provocative Mildly Autistic Location | 07/10/24 | | Navy rigpig | 07/10/24 | | Razzle Plaza Stock Car | 07/10/24 | | Vivacious business firm dog poop | 07/11/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/10/24 | | Razzle Plaza Stock Car | 07/10/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/10/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/10/24 | | Navy rigpig | 07/11/24 | | Razzle Plaza Stock Car | 07/11/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/11/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | Godawful Resort | 07/10/24 | | Metal Appetizing House Main People | 07/10/24 | | dashing lime heaven dysfunction | 07/13/24 | | flirting lavender water buffalo regret | 07/13/24 | | Galvanic rehab tattoo | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Galvanic rehab tattoo | 07/10/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/10/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/10/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | Razzle Plaza Stock Car | 07/11/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/11/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | dashing lime heaven dysfunction | 07/13/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/10/24 | | wild domesticated pistol | 07/10/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | Galvanic rehab tattoo | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/12/24 | | Metal Appetizing House Main People | 07/10/24 | | violent wine toilet seat | 07/10/24 | | arrogant church mad cow disease | 07/10/24 | | shimmering hilarious bawdyhouse | 07/11/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/11/24 | | bearded primrose cuckoldry | 07/11/24 | | rusted trip karate weed whacker | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | fantasy-prone area | 07/11/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/12/24 | | Ruby hairless private investor | 07/11/24 | | rusted trip karate weed whacker | 07/11/24 | | Ruby hairless private investor | 07/11/24 | | rusted trip karate weed whacker | 07/11/24 | | fantasy-prone area | 07/11/24 | | rusted trip karate weed whacker | 07/11/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/11/24 | | Ruby hairless private investor | 07/11/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | flirting lavender water buffalo regret | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | cyan faggotry | 07/11/24 | | fantasy-prone area | 07/11/24 | | arrogant church mad cow disease | 07/11/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/11/24 | | rusted trip karate weed whacker | 07/11/24 | | curious gaping | 07/11/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | curious gaping | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | curious gaping | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | Razzle Plaza Stock Car | 07/11/24 | | Demanding boyish parlour | 07/11/24 | | Bateful messiness travel guidebook | 07/12/24 | | Copper church building | 07/12/24 | | Vivacious business firm dog poop | 07/11/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/11/24 | | Spruce Candlestick Maker Mad-dog Skullcap | 07/11/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/12/24 | | Disgusting excitant site newt | 07/12/24 | | Spruce Candlestick Maker Mad-dog Skullcap | 07/12/24 | | Disgusting excitant site newt | 07/12/24 | | Cream Property Headpube | 07/12/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/12/24 | | shimmering hilarious bawdyhouse | 07/12/24 | | Spruce Candlestick Maker Mad-dog Skullcap | 07/12/24 | | chartreuse contagious background story | 07/12/24 | | Aphrodisiac public bath pervert | 07/12/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/12/24 | | chartreuse contagious background story | 07/12/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | vigorous garrison | 07/13/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | Titillating canary mexican | 07/13/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | fantasy-prone area | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/13/24 | | coral fluffy puppy | 07/13/24 | | dashing lime heaven dysfunction | 07/13/24 | | Green disrespectful abode trust fund | 07/13/24 | | Unhinged state persian | 07/13/24 | | Startling ivory indirect expression | 07/13/24 | | sepia razzmatazz lay dopamine | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | razzle-dazzle nubile jew | 07/13/24 | | curious gaping | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | swollen locale degenerate | 07/13/24 | | fantasy-prone area | 07/13/24 | | pink electric furnace old irish cottage | 07/13/24 | | ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 10/13/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: July 10th, 2024 4:52 PM Author: razzle-dazzle nubile jew
I think a reasonable jury would agree with this:
Spiro said that even if Baldwin pulled the trigger, it was not a crime. He said it was the job of Gutierrez and Halls to safely allow an actor "to wave it, to point it, to pull the trigger, like actors do."
"On a movie set you're allowed to pull the trigger, so even if he intentionally pulled the trigger, as prosecutors said, that doesn't mean he committed a homicide," said Spiro.
But since he’s a known lib and there are probably a few MAGAs on the jury he’ll probably get several votes to convict regardless.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47828419) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 8:40 AM Author: coral fluffy puppy
I'm not a lawyer, but what's the standard for how much responsibility he reasonably has here? Is every actor expected to check every round in every magazine before they fire it? Or load it themselves? Is Keanu Reeves supposed to shuck every 9mm blank and reload it before he shoots 1,200 rounds over the course of "John Wick 7: Another One"? If so, is that standard practice? If not, why not? Wouldn't that alleviate responsibility? Who has the technical expertise to set standard firearm safety practices on set? Were those practices followed?
Do actors have the technical expertise and familiarity with firearms to know they should clear it in the first place? Do they all know how to properly do that? If not in either case, whose responsibility is it to inform them?
I have no love for some shitlib fagtor but the links here seem fairly tenuous.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47830349) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 11:51 AM Author: coral fluffy puppy
A remarkably different scenario, as anyone with an IQ > 85 can immediately understand.
The answer to your hypo, though, would depend on my age, the age of my friend, how he got the gun, etc. -- all of which are used to answer the same general question at which my more specific questions are aimed: how obvious is it that Baldwin should have known better?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47830784)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 10:56 PM Author: coral fluffy puppy
I literally don't care at all whether or not he's executed for this, he should die anyway.
That's entirely separate from the more interesting academic question of, "how much responsibility does he practically hold here?"
I'm sure there's a lawyer here who does torts for a living; I'm curious whether there are any real codified standards by which to evaluate fault here, or whether it's just a matter of selling a jury on whatever your case theory is.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47833392) |
 |
Date: July 10th, 2024 11:30 PM Author: Titillating canary mexican
Oh wow, turns out you're just completely fucking wrong:
https://www.slashfilm.com/1227707/john-wick-4-director-chad-stahleski-gets-candid-about-live-firearms-on-film-sets/
"[D]irector and stunt expert Chad Stahelski doesn't use the same type of blanks that can result in real-life deaths like the tragedies on the sets of 'Rust' and 'The Crow.' According to Stahelski, filmmakers don't have to risk the deadly capabilities of blanks, either, since there exists technology that allows for much safer firearms practices during shoots.... Filmmakers like Stahelski, however, argue that a mix of electronic plug guns and CG effects have been able to replace the use of blanks on film sets and 'that there's no reason to have a live firearm on set.'"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47829718) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:58 PM Author: Titillating canary mexican
Shitlib Baldwin Apologists: "Do these prosecutors not realize that, under state-of-the-art, industry-standard protocols for firearm safety on set, it is perfectly reasonable for an actor to fire a live firearm into the chest of another human while just presuming that the gun was properly loaded with blanks?! While, yes, there is little gained from dispensing with this incredibly easy and universal-everywhere-else-on-Earth safety precaution (I guess a couple seconds' time), the safety protocols and firearm-safety personnel making these assurances are so STATE OF THE ART that redundant safety precautions would be mere surplusage."
John Wick Director: "Actually state of the art is to use fake guns augmented by CGI; it's pricey, but you also save on armorers, etc."
Shitlib Baldwin Apologists: "Well people have the right to rely on Shit Pure Shit non-industry-standard protocols as well! I mean jesus christ: do YOU not find it to be a pain in the ass to check your ammo EVERY TIME you want to point your firearm into another person's chest and pull the trigger?! For fuck's sake!"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831195) |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:10 AM Author: rusted trip karate weed whacker
I dont get it, weren't they filming or rehearsing? He shouldn't be on trial for this. He was supposed to shoot it and it was someone else's job to make sure it didn't *literally* have a bullet in it given this is a make believe fantasy movie where actors are going to shoot guns.
This is not reckless behavior for an actor who is supposed to be shooting a gun at someone in the scene.
Don't like the guy but this is an easy acquit. There is no mens rea.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47829948) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:43 AM Author: rusted trip karate weed whacker
You know what I mean, stupid faggot.
An involuntary manslaughter jury instruction is proper only when the evidence presented at trial permits the jury to find the defendant had a mental state of criminal negligence when engaging in the act causing the victim's death. State v. Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, 148 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47829975)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:51 AM Author: Ruby hairless private investor
no i dont know what u mean
youre also retarded re "He was supposed to shoot it and it was someone else's job to make sure..."
no, not necessarily. that's for a jury to decide. jurors could easily think it's his job to double check
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47829999) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:56 AM Author: rusted trip karate weed whacker
you got blown out pumo.
"this doesn't involve mens rea!"
New Mexico Supreme Court: "the mens rea required for invol mans is criminal negligence"
and no shit thats for the jury to decide you dumb shit. and its an easy decision.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47830006)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 11:53 AM Author: Titillating canary mexican
Nah, bro, here we make up a standard of care out of thin air -- "in the Hallowed Halls of THE THEATRE, it is HERETOFORE AND EVERMORE DECLARED that it is NOT the responsibility of the THESBIAN to perform a basic ammunition check, that little children know how to do, before pointing the muzzle of your firearm directly at the center mass of another person (and not slightly off, as is done 99% of the time because the camera can't tell anyway) and pulling the trigger, and if that means some cinematographer SLUTS have to die (they call them "DPs" for a reason, amirite!?), then that is merely the price we must pay for ART" -- and then dutifully apply that SACROSANCT STANDANRD, without sympathy or prejudice, to the facts.
Why, how would we ever have such films as John Wick if not for this Holy Rule of "you're not responsible for the ppl you point a working firearm at and pull the trigger on"?!?!? Have I mentioned JOHN WICK?! What about John Wick! Why, it would be completely impractical to bring John Wick to the masses working under the Oppressive Regime of "you are responsible for the ppl you point a loaded gun at and fire upon, so you had better personally check the chamber/magazine"! HAHA, I got you there! These Fascist art-Haters are basically advocating for a world without John Wick!
(**sees article where the director of John Wick is like "omg given all the unavoidable close-range shooting our film has, I'd never allow live firearms with blanks on our set; it's unconscionable and you've got to just put in the big money to add non-shitty CG effects and use expensive fake guns where the slide kicks back and ejects shell casings, etc. -- otherwise you risk having a homicide on your set, like that movie, Rust, where there has literally already been a criminal conviction for homicide"**)
"Well my point stands!"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47830794) |
Date: July 11th, 2024 8:41 AM Author: coral fluffy puppy
the first rule of gun safety is to have fun
free my nigga alec
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47830351) |
Date: July 11th, 2024 9:34 AM Author: fantasy-prone area
the absurdity of this whole thing is Baldwin's defense is "I didn't pull the trigger!"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47830435)
|
Date: July 11th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: coral fluffy puppy
Still have no idea why the fuck there was live ammo on a movie set
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831651)
|
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:21 PM Author: curious gaping
Cannot believe there are people dumb enough to say complete idiocy about gun rules.
It's a.movie. JFC
You're not supposed to have an atom bomb either but you wouldn't charge Cillian Murphy ifmthe Oppenheimer prop guy was dumb enough to make one.
There was a person on set, per standard protocol, to manage the firearms- that professional is responsible- not the actor who the week before was the voice of Thomas the train
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831793) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:33 PM Author: Demanding boyish parlour
Why do people keep posting this over and over again?
-Baldwin hired that person
-Baldwin failed to remove her after prior negligent conduct
-Baldwin was in charge of everyone on set (ie, signed their paychecks)
-Baldwin was not instructed by set director nor anyone else to shoot the gun when it fired (ie, was not "acting" at the time)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831821) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:47 PM Author: curious gaping
because the argument people are making here is "because every time you pick up a firearm you assume it has live rounds in the chamber" which has nothing to do with negligent producing
If you want to make that case, then show that Baldwin hired her, was informed of her gross incompetence, and then did nothing. But no one itt is making that case.
There's probably 15 different producers on the movie and hes the only one charged despite having the least to do with the armorer
Its an asinine argument because the dead woman who was the second director was probably actually the one most in charge of her...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831879) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:54 PM Author: Demanding boyish parlour
I would assume it has live rounds like any reasonable person would after 5 minutes of pistol training.
I would especially assume that with a stock unmodified revolver after live rounds were already fired on a movie set that same week.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831899)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:57 PM Author: curious gaping
Lol at your fucking dishonesty
"Its his liability as a producer!"
*immediately responds with equally idiotic points about Baldwin's role as an actor*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831908) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 5:07 PM Author: Demanding boyish parlour
Try re-reading
He is morally culpable as producer, but possibly (or likely) not criminally liable
He was not acting at the time he killed someone
*inb4 you regurgitate the same half-assed "DURRR it's just like Brandon Lee" non sequitur that was already posted multiple times before you*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47831949) |
Date: July 12th, 2024 8:33 PM Author: chartreuse contagious background story
Sad result
Charges may or may not should have been brought, I dunno, but Baldwin is a shitlib piece of filth and belonged in prison
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47835789) |
 |
Date: July 13th, 2024 12:25 AM Author: Titillating canary mexican
No, from all appearances the withholding of evidence was pretty bad. It's complicated, but I'll give you an easy proxy to save you the time of familiarizing yourself with the merits: one of the two prosecutors (Erlinda Johnson, the cute GOP chick who gave the opening), when she found out the other (Kari Morrissey, the butch lesbian who "loves [Baldwin's] politics") had withheld the evidence, said the case should be immediately dismissed, and when Morrissey didn't agree, resigned mid-trial in protest.
Morrissey's basis for her view that the rounds were not material under Brady was predicated on Baldwin's stated defense of not pulling the trigger, which, as we all know, was not *really* going to be the defense because it's fucking stupid. (I mean, it's what retard shitlib alec baldwin believes, so they'd let him get up and claim it -- who knows, maybe the jury bites on it -- but defense counsel were clearly going to put on a real defense behind alec's dumb story.) But if you take it at face value, then claims about deliberate sabotage -- which, btw, is still what I think happened here -- do indeed become irrelevant lol.
EDIT: Lessons here:
* Cons are more ethical than libs, who believe the ends always justify the means
* Ugly ppl are bad ppl
* Prosecutors = shit
* If you can afford it, it is well worth the money to pay millions of dollars to a defense team so that they can dump manhours upon manhours upon FTEs upon FTEs into replicating everything the prosecution has done (right down to Morrissey calling Baldwin a cocksucker), finding what evidence has been given to them and what became of it, etc.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47836230) |
 |
Date: July 13th, 2024 1:37 AM Author: Titillating canary mexican
I had a long af explanation but then I accidentally closed the tab, and now don't have the energy to replicate. Suffice to say that it's a little complicated, because the theory of the rounds' relevance is attenuated and their provenance can be very credibly questioned. The proxy I was referring to assumed that you agreed that it's not normal for a prosecutor to resign mid-trial in protest over a decision s/he views as unethical.
There's a sabotage theory out there that someone brought rounds onto the set deliberately in order to cause chaos (this is what I think happened; it's like people who throw bricks off interstate overpasses) or to make some quasi-political point (there were all kinds of labor disputes on this set; this theory seems lame to me, but who knows, maybe it exasperated some weirdo's preexisting grievances). The armorer's attorney made this point and was roundly mocked for having "no evidence" to support it, which to me seems to ignore the res ipsa loquitur aspect of this. (What I mean by that is: look at all the ppl ITT saying that it was totally reasonable for baldwin to point a gun at someone and shoot it b/c this is a movie set. What they're really saying is "the protocols in place to prevent an accident have been so refined and are so reliable that the normal rule-#1 safety requirements attendant to firearms need not apply; they have been replaced here with clean-room-type safety procedures administered by dedicated safety professionals." It's a fair question at what point a movie becomes shitty enough to where it's no longer reasonable for an actor (or a producer-actor (!), which to me is relevant, but the judge disagreed with me) to dispense with certain of the normal "don't shoot ppl" gun-safety rules (e.g., SAG guidelines prohibit what baldwin did, and it would also not be seen on a true high-budget film, but there's some evidence that it's standard practice for B-movies that aren't so bad they just paint on CG muzzle flashes). But regardless, one of the major premises of their argument is: it's nigh impossible for live rounds to end up in an actor's gun given the protocols in place. To me, the flipside of that premise, assuming it's true, is that when an on-set shooting happens, sabotage has to be kept in consideration until it's excluded, which normally only happens at the point at which the actual cause is uncovered -- which never happened here.)
Anyway, in this case, the armorer's father (also an armorer, but a real one, not a DEI nepo hire like his daughter) has been using his connections to poke around on set and with the various firearm/prop vendors that sold to the set and try to gin up somewhat-questionable evidence of sabotage and/or negligence not attributable to his daughter, in the hopes of undermining the case against her. I will broadly characterize these efforts as unconvincing at the specific level, but *definitely* the type of thing that a defense attorney would want to know about and be able to work off of, as the theory remains very strong (I still think more-likely-than-not) at the general level. I will note that I doubt there's any evidence out there that's going to fully exculpate the armorer -- her job, after all, literally involves directly monitoring the last steps of the process, not just administering the earlier-stage protocols that keep live rounds off the set altogether -- but (a) it might exculpate baldwin, who has an easier row to hoe here; and (b) the varying cases against baldwin and Gutierrez notwithstanding, baldwin just gets to relitigate shit that was decided in Gutierrez's case if he wants to (and he does want to, as he has better lawyers than she did and much more ability to pay the shit out of them).
Morrissey said that she reviewed photos of the rounds and they didn't resemble the live rounds found on set. I have no idea what means, given that my understanding is that the 6 rounds found around the set varied in caliber, headstamp, age, etc. (they were also found everywhere: mixed in with blanks, one was on another actor's bandolier, the one baldwin used to murder that girl, etc.) But apparently at least some of the distinguishing characteristics relied upon did not actually exist when the actual rounds were produced in court. (This is a point where I fully admit we need more information. Saying "those rounds don't resemble these rounds" without specifying, say, I dunno, caliber (?), is pretty classic NYT soyboy-level understanding of guns.)
Anyway, the prosecutor deemed these rounds to not be "material to the defense" based on the defense being that baldwin didn't pull the trigger, which is so wrong it just has to be viewed as bad faith -- and by that I mean a deliberately snarky/flippant expression of a decision that (hopefully) was not actually based on that analysis.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47836337) |
 |
Date: July 13th, 2024 3:36 PM Author: curious gaping
What are you struggling to understand?
The prosecutors (who are obviously biased against Baldwin for even bringing these juvenile charges) deliberately violated their obligations to.disclose evidence to the defendant.
Judge saw.this and said prosecutor acted in such bad faith the entire case is dismissed. Honestly should happen more often and prosecutor s should be jailed when they behave like this. It seems to happen in like 50% or high profile cases (Trayvon, making a murderer, etc) so seems like prosecutors just do this routinely to normal people and dont get.caught
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47837665) |
Date: July 13th, 2024 5:14 PM Author: fantasy-prone area
So, to recap — the case against Baldwin was booted because the prosecution was not given the opportunity to examine some blank ammunition that 1) was never on the set, 2) was never in the hands of anybody involved with the production, and 3) not even filed under the case number of all the other evidence that actually pertained to Baldwin?
Can some lawyer on here explain how any of that makes any sense at all?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#47837836) |
Date: October 13th, 2025 6:35 PM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2...id.#49347010) |
|
|