Opening Statements in Alec Baldwin involuntary manslaughter trial
| At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/10/24 | | chartreuse location gay wizard | 07/10/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | laughsome costumed ladyboy legend | 07/10/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/10/24 | | Contagious Slate Candlestick Maker Ratface | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | Yapping scarlet tank | 07/11/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/10/24 | | Concupiscible Chrome Halford | 07/10/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/10/24 | | Concupiscible Chrome Halford | 07/11/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/10/24 | | translucent coldplay fan | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend | 07/10/24 | | Iridescent swashbuckling pervert | 07/11/24 | | puce comical giraffe | 07/12/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/10/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | Iridescent swashbuckling pervert | 07/11/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/11/24 | | puce comical giraffe | 07/12/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/13/24 | | puce comical giraffe | 07/13/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/13/24 | | chartreuse location gay wizard | 07/10/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | Clear titillating hell multi-billionaire | 07/10/24 | | maize blood rage chad | 07/10/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | soggy trust fund | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/10/24 | | disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend | 07/10/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/10/24 | | Cerise public bath jew | 07/10/24 | | disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend | 07/10/24 | | rusted exciting site black woman | 07/11/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | ruby dingle berry degenerate | 07/10/24 | | Multi-colored Field Background Story | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/11/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | Khaki Parlour Toilet Seat | 07/10/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | Adventurous cobalt space regret | 07/11/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | lake sex offender | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | puce comical giraffe | 07/12/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | Clear titillating hell multi-billionaire | 07/10/24 | | chartreuse location gay wizard | 07/10/24 | | Deep Love Of Her Life Kitty Cat | 07/10/24 | | Contagious Slate Candlestick Maker Ratface | 07/10/24 | | Razzmatazz transparent sanctuary personal credit line | 07/11/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/10/24 | | Contagious Slate Candlestick Maker Ratface | 07/10/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/10/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/10/24 | | Deep Love Of Her Life Kitty Cat | 07/11/24 | | Contagious Slate Candlestick Maker Ratface | 07/11/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/11/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | Shivering irate dilemma | 07/10/24 | | cordovan internal respiration | 07/10/24 | | Rose Abnormal Center | 07/13/24 | | Motley rehab | 07/13/24 | | Yapping scarlet tank | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | Yapping scarlet tank | 07/10/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/10/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/10/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | Contagious Slate Candlestick Maker Ratface | 07/11/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/11/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | Rose Abnormal Center | 07/13/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/10/24 | | beady-eyed bearded theatre double fault | 07/10/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | Yapping scarlet tank | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/12/24 | | cordovan internal respiration | 07/10/24 | | Cerise public bath jew | 07/10/24 | | turquoise meetinghouse | 07/10/24 | | Carmine odious hissy fit | 07/11/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/11/24 | | swollen opaque associate | 07/11/24 | | carnelian autistic new version | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | Adventurous cobalt space regret | 07/11/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/12/24 | | disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend | 07/11/24 | | carnelian autistic new version | 07/11/24 | | disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend | 07/11/24 | | carnelian autistic new version | 07/11/24 | | Adventurous cobalt space regret | 07/11/24 | | carnelian autistic new version | 07/11/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/11/24 | | disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend | 07/11/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | Motley rehab | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | vengeful smoky national security agency | 07/11/24 | | Adventurous cobalt space regret | 07/11/24 | | turquoise meetinghouse | 07/11/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/11/24 | | carnelian autistic new version | 07/11/24 | | Provocative corn cake | 07/11/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | Provocative corn cake | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | Provocative corn cake | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | Contagious Slate Candlestick Maker Ratface | 07/11/24 | | zombie-like sexy garrison | 07/11/24 | | puce comical giraffe | 07/12/24 | | Nighttime cuck piazza | 07/12/24 | | Razzmatazz transparent sanctuary personal credit line | 07/11/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/11/24 | | Iridescent swashbuckling pervert | 07/11/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/12/24 | | Mind-boggling blathering codepig kitchen | 07/12/24 | | Iridescent swashbuckling pervert | 07/12/24 | | Mind-boggling blathering codepig kitchen | 07/12/24 | | excitant cuckold trailer park | 07/12/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/12/24 | | Carmine odious hissy fit | 07/12/24 | | Iridescent swashbuckling pervert | 07/12/24 | | lake sex offender | 07/12/24 | | Mint Cracking University | 07/12/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/12/24 | | lake sex offender | 07/12/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | umber office gaming laptop | 07/13/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | crusty poppy bbw | 07/13/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | Adventurous cobalt space regret | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/13/24 | | Stirring Ape Indirect Expression | 07/13/24 | | Rose Abnormal Center | 07/13/24 | | Stimulating Narrow-minded Haunted Graveyard Brunch | 07/13/24 | | sapphire adulterous boistinker knife | 07/13/24 | | Seedy tattoo generalized bond | 07/13/24 | | honey-headed self-absorbed headpube | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | At-the-ready tanning salon | 07/13/24 | | Provocative corn cake | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | Coral Foreskin | 07/13/24 | | Adventurous cobalt space regret | 07/13/24 | | Wonderful Bull Headed Whorehouse Roommate | 07/13/24 | | ,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 10/13/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: July 10th, 2024 4:52 PM Author: At-the-ready tanning salon
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=2Reputation#47828419) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 8:40 AM Author: Stirring Ape Indirect Expression
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=2Reputation#47830349) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 11:51 AM Author: Stirring Ape Indirect Expression
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=2Reputation#47830784)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 10:56 PM Author: Stirring Ape Indirect Expression
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=2Reputation#47833392) |
 |
Date: July 10th, 2024 11:30 PM Author: crusty poppy bbw
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=2Reputation#47829718) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:58 PM Author: crusty poppy bbw
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=2Reputation#47831195) |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:10 AM Author: carnelian autistic new version
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=2Reputation#47829948) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:43 AM Author: carnelian autistic new version
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=2Reputation#47829975)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:51 AM Author: disrespectful chapel organic girlfriend
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=2Reputation#47829999) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 1:56 AM Author: carnelian autistic new version
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=2Reputation#47830006)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 11:53 AM Author: crusty poppy bbw
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=2Reputation#47830794) |
Date: July 11th, 2024 8:41 AM Author: Stirring Ape Indirect Expression
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=2Reputation#47830351) |
Date: July 11th, 2024 9:34 AM Author: Adventurous cobalt space regret
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=2Reputation#47830435)
|
Date: July 11th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: Stirring Ape Indirect Expression
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=2Reputation#47831651)
|
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:21 PM Author: Provocative corn cake
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=2Reputation#47831793) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:33 PM Author: zombie-like sexy garrison
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=2Reputation#47831821) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:47 PM Author: Provocative corn cake
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=2Reputation#47831879) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:54 PM Author: zombie-like sexy garrison
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=2Reputation#47831899)
|
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 4:57 PM Author: Provocative corn cake
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=2Reputation#47831908) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2024 5:07 PM Author: zombie-like sexy garrison
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=2Reputation#47831949) |
Date: July 12th, 2024 8:33 PM Author: lake sex offender
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=2Reputation#47835789) |
 |
Date: July 13th, 2024 12:25 AM Author: crusty poppy bbw
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=2Reputation#47836230) |
 |
Date: July 13th, 2024 1:37 AM Author: crusty poppy bbw
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=2Reputation#47836337) |
 |
Date: July 13th, 2024 3:36 PM Author: Provocative corn cake
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=2Reputation#47837665) |
Date: July 13th, 2024 5:14 PM Author: Adventurous cobalt space regret
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=2Reputation#47837836) |
Date: October 13th, 2025 6:35 PM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2Reputation#49347010) |
|
|