- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is it fair to say at this point Alec Baldwin will not be facing justice?
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:04 pm to Vamos Brandonos
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:04 pm to Vamos Brandonos
quote:
Those words have commonly understood meanings. Court interpretation is not required.
That’s cute
Alright, my only goal on this thread was to get you jackasses to spend a few seconds educating yourselves on what you are actually arguing for. Mission accomplished. I’m going going to get some sleep. You guys have fun. See if someone will let you borrow their Lexis/Westlaw credentials
2
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:05 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
That’s an absolutely abysmal word salad of a law that I imagine has reams of jurisprudence defining each of those words.
While unfortunately not unusual it is a clusterfrick of a statute.
Breezing through the case law it appears reckless is the required standard.
I wonder if the negligent use of a firearm misdemeanor could be used skillfully to avoid the reckless requirement. It would be arguable it is a lesser included crime so it would not trigger the move from the reckless standard but I didn't go down the rabbit hole looking. It is almost certain that theory would not jive with the legislative intent.
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:06 pm to cardswinagain
quote:
Sort of like what Dems have been doing to Trump huh?
Holy non sequitur, Batman
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:07 pm to Vamos Brandonos
quote:
Those words have commonly understood meanings. Court interpretation is not required.
If that were true my workload would be 5% of what it is now.
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:08 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
While unfortunately not unusual it is a clusterfrick of a statute. Breezing through the case law it appears reckless is the required standard. I wonder if the negligent use of a firearm misdemeanor could be used skillfully to avoid the reckless requirement. It would be arguable it is a lesser included crime so it would not trigger the move from the reckless standard but I didn't go down the rabbit hole looking. It is almost certain that theory would not jive with the legislative intent.
Yikes, that sounds all kind of messy. Not that our gross negligence standard is any less of a clusterfrick.
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:12 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Not that our gross negligence standard is any less of a clusterfrick.
In fairness, I don't know how NM defines recklessness in criminal cases and how the case law has shaped that definition. It also appears their homicide statutes have had a lot of revisions which often make them murkier at each step.
Better call Saul.
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:29 pm to Vamos Brandonos
He was always going to get away with it barring an angry family member out for blood. There is no justice in the world, not unless we make it.
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:30 pm to Vamos Brandonos
Liability to the family. Did you think what he did was intentional?
Posted on 4/20/22 at 10:42 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Alright, my only goal on this thread was to get you jackasses to spend a few seconds educating yourselves on what you are actually arguing for. Mission accomplished. I’m going going to get some sleep. You guys have fun. See if someone will let you borrow their Lexis/Westlaw credentials
This is a message board, not a court of law and not your crim law hypothetical. Your posts don't make you sound smart, they make you sound like a pompous virgin.
Posted on 4/20/22 at 11:38 pm to OweO
quote:
You want to know the truth? I honestly don't give a frick.
I do
He murdered someone
Posted on 4/21/22 at 6:37 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
This is a message board, not a court of law and not your crim law hypothetical. Your posts don't make you sound smart, they make you sound like a pompous virgin.
Rabble rabble rabble!
If people want to grab their torch and pitchfork and cry about the legal system failing them, they should at least have some idea as to what they’re talking about. If they don’t, they should ask questions instead of making proclamations.
Sorry that my injecting a bit of reality into the thread took some of the wind out of the circle jerk.
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 6:38 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:20 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Which statute would you like to see him charged with? Please link to it, or give citation.
New Mexico Statutes. Chapter 30. Article 2. Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter
The pertinent part that fits Baldwin to a T
quote:
Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the...commission of a lawful act which might produce death...without due caution and circumspection.
quote:
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony
ETA: I see it's already been posted
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 7:26 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:22 am to Kafka
You warned me? You seem to always be warning me yet nothing happens. Eat a dick.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:26 am to Vamos Brandonos
Dude was literally acting in a movie. It’s completely ridiculous to insinuate he should have known the gun had a live round in it. I swear people want him thrown away because they don’t like his politics. Which is sad and hypocritical and ridiculous.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:27 am to sabes que
quote:
Dude was literally acting in a movie
Actually he wasn't.
He was on the set but no scenes were being filmed when he fired the shot.
He was extremely negligent, but not criminal.
quote:
. It’s completely ridiculous to insinuate he should have known the gun had a live round
Hollywood firearms experts have disagreed with you on this. So you're wrong.
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 7:28 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:29 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Did I defend him, or did I simply ask the OP why they were taking the position they were?
But per your normal bullshite, anyone who questions the hive mind must have every flaw you want them to
Absolutely no one offers a rebuttal to this. Just a barrage of downvotes.
The OT is soft these days
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 7:30 am
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:31 am to RogerTheShrubber
Why would a gun that is a prop in a movie have a live round in it? Obviously it did, but there is no way he can be expected to think that.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:35 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
Your posts don't make you sound smart, they make you sound like a pompous virgin.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:35 am to Vamos Brandonos
Did you think he would?
Posted on 4/21/22 at 7:36 am to jrowla2
quote:
He clearly wasn’t wanting to kill the woman or know gun was loaded.
So he didn’t know if the gun was loaded or not (bc he didn’t check it) then he proceeded to point it at a woman and pull the trigger. Sounds like negligent homicide (or that state’s equivalent) should be on the table.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News