Alex Baldwin vindicated

Did the shot call for the death of anyone? NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. Just as negligent as if he had gotten shit-faced drunk and ran his car into a crowd of people killing a couple.

Says you. The prosecutors say otherwise, at least for now.
 
He was pointing the gun at the camera because that's what the shot called for.
Unfortunately ... he did MUCH MORE than just point a gun at a camera. He pulled the hammer back on a loaded gun; pointed it at a woman; and pulled the trigger. Two VERY different things.

Anyone who knows anything at all about guns will tell you that you NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you plan on shooting them. Secondly ... you always treat a firearm as if it's loaded even if you don't think it is.
 
Actually. No it isn’t unfair or unjust. First. The practices on a film set are different than the rest of the world. Second. The pistol was destroyed during testing thus making the key piece of evidence unavailable for Defense testing and experts to examine it. That means the key piece of evidence was certainly going to be excluded from the trial.

So a dismissal was all but inevitable.
just like hilliary's emails and computers were 'unavailable;'. LOLOL
 
Unfortunately ... he did MUCH MORE than just point a gun at a camera. He pulled the hammer back on a loaded gun; pointed it at a woman; and pulled the trigger. Two VERY different things.

Anyone who knows anything at all about guns will tell you that you NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you plan on shooting them. Secondly ... you always treat a firearm as if it's loaded even if you don't think it is.
As Baldwin's civil settlements demonstrate, he clearly has culpability in the death of his cinematographer.

Criminally, all charges were dropped, at least for now.

This is. You can agree or disagree with it. But that doesn't change the reality of it.
 
As Baldwin's civil settlements demonstrate, he clearly has culpability in the death of his cinematographer.

Criminally, all charges were dropped, at least for now.

This is. You can agree or disagree with it. But that doesn't change the reality of it.
You don't owe civil damages for a crime unless a crime was committed. Just because some "woke," activist judge let the murderer off of the hook doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve at least 10 years for manslaughter.
 
You don't owe civil damages for a crime unless a crime was committed. Just because some "woke," activist judge let the murderer off of the hook doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve at least 10 years for manslaughter.

You owe civil damages if there are tortable damages.

Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

And your personal opinion on what someone 'deserves' is perfectly irrelevant to anything legal outcome.....unless you're on the jury.

Which you most certainly aren't. As there never was one.
 
You owe civil damages if there are tortable damages.

Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

And your personal opinion on what someone 'deserves' is perfectly irrelevant to anything legal outcome.....unless you're on the jury.

Which you most certainly aren't. As there never was one.
He owes lots of damages, and he owes society time in prison. He's clearly dangerous. We already knew he was deranged.
 
You guys need to learn the law. Seriously.



This explains why Trump’s DOJ didn’t indict Hillary. And why Trump is facing indictment. It isn’t the similarities. It is the differences.


Oh, this guys great. I miss his old video editor though.
 

Forum List

Back
Top