Alec Baldwin shooting

[ClydeR]

“The prosecutors in this case have committed an unconstitutional and elementary legal error by charging Mr. Baldwin under a statute that did not exist on the date of the accident,” Baldwin’s attorneys wrote in the motion.

At the time of the incident, New Mexico’s firearm-enhancement statute was applied to cases where a gun was “brandished” in the commission of a non-capital felony, defining brandished as displaying a firearm “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.”

The statute was later amended by the New Mexico legislature to remove any mention that a gun must be brandished, the court filing states.

Baldwin’s attorneys argue the new version of the statute cannot apply to conduct that occurred before it was enacted and called retroactively applying the enhancement “flagrantly unconstitutional.”

More...

Is the above an example of incompetence or, when considered with the below, an example of corruption?

“Another day, another motion from Alec Baldwin and his attorneys in an attempt to distract from the gross negligence and complete disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set that led to Halyna Hutchins’ death,” said the district attorney’s office in a statement. “In accordance with good legal practice, the District Attorney and the special prosecutor will review all motions–even those given to the media before being served to the DA. However, the DA’s and the special prosecutor’s focus will always remain on ensuring that justice is served and that everyone–even celebrities with fancy attorneys–is held accountable under the law. ”

More...

Does it take a fancy attorney to know that you can't charge somebody for something that wasn't a crime at the time of the incident? I learned the phrase "ex post facto" in the Fourth Grade when the teacher explained Constitutional protections. The prosecutor is calling it "fancy" lawyering and "an attempt to distract"! Does that give you confidence that this will be a fair proceeding?

You may remember that Dave Hall, who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was "cold," accepted a plea deal in this case and will surely be called to testify against Baldwin. It has now come to light that Mr. Hall's attorney donated to the political campaign of the prosecutor, who is also a state legislator in New Mexico. The New Mexico constitution, in case anybody is interested in such fancy things, specifically says that legislators may not serve in other government offices. The New Mexico legislature appropriated more than $300,000 to pay this prosecutor, who as I just said, is a member of the legislature.

[Tgo01]

Who is surprised that far leftists such as Clyder are rushing to the defense of a well known leftist maniac who murdered someone?

Now we just need dipshits time4fun, Bhaalizmo, and Seran to come in here and somehow claim that Baldwin's victim is at fault for her own murder. But remember, leftists just love it when men shoot unarmed women in the head. It's their bread and butter.

[Bhaalizmo]

Who is surprised that far leftists such as Clyder are rushing to the defense of a well known leftist maniac who murdered someone?

Now we just need dipshits time4fun, Bhaalizmo, and Seran to come in here and somehow claim that Baldwin's victim is at fault for her own murder. But remember, leftists just love it when men shoot unarmed women in the head. It's their bread and butter.

Did you even read the above?

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

In summary: You're an idiot.

[Gelston]

Did you even read the above?

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

In summary: You're an idiot.

It is a defense of Baldwin…

[ClydeR]

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

It's an example of readers drawing a conclusion based on their expectations, instead of based of reading comprehension. Baldwin did not cause the prosecutor to make this error. The fact that he got lucky is not praise of him.

In addition to being a legal error, the prosecutor's behavior was very bad. To demean Badlwin's attorneys, as the prosecutor did, because they asserted a reasonable argument on his behalf is petty. It makes me believe this prosecutor is inexperienced and not up to the job. And it raises questions about why this particular prosecutor was chosen for this particular prosecution. They should get a new prosecutor before their next public humiliation.

[Methais]

Did you even read the above?

Cliff notes: It doesn't read like a defense of Baldwin.

In summary: You're an idiot.

It is, you just can't read.

Anyway, do you believe Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter?

[ClydeR]

Anyway, do you believe Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter?

That is the question, now that the unconstitutional part of the charge against Badlwin appears to be on its way to being thrown out of court. Below is the statute for involuntary manslaughter. I highlighted the parts that I think are relevant..

30-2-3. Manslaughter.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-2-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 2-3; 1994, ch. 23, § 2.

More...

Breaking it down..

• "manslaughter committed" - Satisfied.
• "in the commission of a lawful act" - Satisfied.
• "which might produce death" - Unsure. There is a very small chance that a golf ball in a normal game of golf could hit someone in the head causing death. Would hitting a golf ball satisfy this element of the crime? If not, then this element of the crime must require that death be a foreseeable possibility flowing from the act. Was it foreseeable that death could be caused by a gun that a gun expert said was safe on a movie set? And if there is a foreseeability requirement for this element of the crime, should it be applied based on the actual knowledge and experience of the person who committed manslaughter or based on the knowledge and experience of an average member of the public or an average person who would be handling a gun on a movie set? And I'm not even going to address the unfortunate use of "which" instead of "that" in the statute.
• "without due caution and circumspection" - This is the real question.

The following additional information is from the above link and is not part of the statute itself..

Criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter by lawful act. — A killing by lawful act, to be involuntary manslaughter, depends on whether the lawful act was done in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" has been held to involve the concept of "criminal negligence," which concept includes conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful. State v. Grubbs, 1973-NMCA-096, 85 N.M. 365, 512 P.2d 693, overruled on other grounds, Santillanes v. State, 1993-NMSC-012, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358; State v. Yarborough, 1995-NMCA-116, 120 N.M. 669, 905 P.2d 209.

Now I just need to know the meaning of each of the words "reckless," "wanton" and "willful."

[LOL BRIELUS]

I don't know, this seems like a losing case. The better case is against the armorer by mixing ammo.

I think for sure the lawsuit will be a huge settlement

[Methais]

That is the question, now that the unconstitutional part of the charge against Badlwin appears to be on its way to being thrown out of court. Below is the statute for involuntary manslaughter. I highlighted the parts that I think are relevant..




Breaking it down..

• "manslaughter committed" - Satisfied.
• "in the commission of a lawful act" - Satisfied.
• "which might produce death" - Unsure. There is a very small chance that a golf ball in a normal game of golf could hit someone in the head causing death. Would hitting a golf ball satisfy this element of the crime? If not, then this element of the crime must require that death be a foreseeable possibility flowing from the act. Was it foreseeable that death could be caused by a gun that a gun expert said was safe on a movie set? And if there is a foreseeability requirement for this element of the crime, should it be applied based on the actual knowledge and experience of the person who committed manslaughter or based on the knowledge and experience of an average member of the public or an average person who would be handling a gun on a movie set? And I'm not even going to address the unfortunate use of "which" instead of "that" in the statute.
• "without due caution and circumspection" - This is the real question.

The following additional information is from the above link and is not part of the statute itself..



Now I just need to know the meaning of each of the words "reckless," "wanton" and "willful."

Shut the fuck up ClydeRetard nobody asked you to speak.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't know, this seems like a losing case. The better case is against the armorer by mixing ammo.

I think for sure the lawsuit will be a huge settlement

Baldwin already settled with the family I think. So really it's the armorer who's got trouble coming. I think Baldwin will at best get a very light slap on the hand, but most likely get nothing.