The Alec Baldwin Trial
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 00:26 last edited by
What really pisses me off is that there is no doubt in my mind that Baldwin is guilty of the charges. To have his case thrown out on a Brady violation is disgusting.
Would the defense having access to this information have changed anything?
Would there still have been a live round in his revolver? Yeah.
And Hutchins would still be dead.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 01:26 last edited by
The judge was pissed at the prosecution. The armorer may get out of jail too.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 11:52 last edited by
Morrissey, the prosecutor claims that she knew nothing of this evidence being "hidden" from the defense. Apparently, some guy showed up at the DA's and delivered 3 bullets which he claimed were from the set of "Rust." The cops inspected the bullets, and determined they were not the same type as on the set.
It is not up to the state to determine whether a piece of evidence is relevant or not - that's up to the defense. It was not revealed to the defense, and this is a Brady violation and the charges are dismissed.
As I've said, the truth has little to do with justice, and justice has little to do with the law.
-
Morrissey, the prosecutor claims that she knew nothing of this evidence being "hidden" from the defense. Apparently, some guy showed up at the DA's and delivered 3 bullets which he claimed were from the set of "Rust." The cops inspected the bullets, and determined they were not the same type as on the set.
It is not up to the state to determine whether a piece of evidence is relevant or not - that's up to the defense. It was not revealed to the defense, and this is a Brady violation and the charges are dismissed.
As I've said, the truth has little to do with justice, and justice has little to do with the law.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 11:57 last edited by@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
As I've said, the truth has little to do with justice, and justice has little to do with the law.
Which is ultimately why I’m not in favor of the death penalty. I don’t have a moral problem with it just a practical one.
-
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
As I've said, the truth has little to do with justice, and justice has little to do with the law.
Which is ultimately why I’m not in favor of the death penalty. I don’t have a moral problem with it just a practical one.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 12:01 last edited by@jon-nyc I've been geeking out with the YouTube lawyers on this (and other) case. One of them commented that this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and if the defendant were someone named Bozo McStupid, and he couldn't afford these lawyers, he'd be behind bars.
Of note, Erlinda Johnson, who was co-counsel with Morrissey (the main prosecutor) resigned from the case at lunchtime. She was not aware of this Brady violation and felt that, in good conscience, she could not continue with the prosecution.
-
@jon-nyc I've been geeking out with the YouTube lawyers on this (and other) case. One of them commented that this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and if the defendant were someone named Bozo McStupid, and he couldn't afford these lawyers, he'd be behind bars.
Of note, Erlinda Johnson, who was co-counsel with Morrissey (the main prosecutor) resigned from the case at lunchtime. She was not aware of this Brady violation and felt that, in good conscience, she could not continue with the prosecution.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 12:39 last edited by@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
One of them commented that this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and if the defendant were someone named Bozo McStupid, and he couldn't afford these lawyers, he'd be behind bars.
As is well known, I'm in favor of the death penalty. I don't even mind an express lane.
But I also believe in fair representation at trial. Money should not buy Justice. I'm not sure what the solution should be, limiting the resources of government or an extreme overhaul of the public defender system, but everybody deserves equal justice under the law.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 12:46 last edited by
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
-
@jon-nyc I've been geeking out with the YouTube lawyers on this (and other) case. One of them commented that this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and if the defendant were someone named Bozo McStupid, and he couldn't afford these lawyers, he'd be behind bars.
Of note, Erlinda Johnson, who was co-counsel with Morrissey (the main prosecutor) resigned from the case at lunchtime. She was not aware of this Brady violation and felt that, in good conscience, she could not continue with the prosecution.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 12:51 last edited by@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Of note, Erlinda Johnson, who was co-counsel with Morrissey (the main prosecutor) resigned from the case at lunchtime. She was not aware of this Brady violation and felt that, in good conscience, she could not continue with the prosecution.
Do we know why she resigned?
-
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Of note, Erlinda Johnson, who was co-counsel with Morrissey (the main prosecutor) resigned from the case at lunchtime. She was not aware of this Brady violation and felt that, in good conscience, she could not continue with the prosecution.
Do we know why she resigned?
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 12:57 last edited by George K@Doctor-Phibes said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Do we know why she resigned?
Yes.
She gave an interview with Chris Cuomo. She said that she knew nothing of the late discovery of this additional evidence which was allegedly withheld from the defense and couldn't, in good conscience, continue.
Morrissey, the special prosecutor claimed that it was because she objected to today's hearing public. Johnson feels otherwise, and she should know.
-
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 13:02 last edited by@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
Yes, but in a vehicular homicide case, a person is operating a vehicle. The person knows that improper operation can cause injury or death. In Baldwin's case, he is handling what he believes to be a firearm loaded with a prop blank, firing the handgun in a movie scene. Yes, it's sloppy gun handling to point a firearm, loaded or unloaded, at somebody, but that's not the main point.
In the case, the movie armorer is at fault.
-
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
Yes, but in a vehicular homicide case, a person is operating a vehicle. The person knows that improper operation can cause injury or death. In Baldwin's case, he is handling what he believes to be a firearm loaded with a prop blank, firing the handgun in a movie scene. Yes, it's sloppy gun handling to point a firearm, loaded or unloaded, at somebody, but that's not the main point.
In the case, the movie armorer is at fault.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 13:18 last edited by@Jolly said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
In Baldwin's case, he is handling what he believes to be a firearm loaded with a prop blank, firing the handgun in a movie scene. Yes, it's sloppy gun handling to point a firearm, loaded or unloaded, at somebody, but that's not the main point.
No question that the armorer is at fault. However, SAG guidelines specifically state that an actor has to ensure that a firearm is safe, personally. Not rely on someone else's word on it.
Aslo, as I think I mentioned, the "I didn't know it was loaded" defense doesn't fly according to the NM Supreme Court.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 13:29 last edited by
Someone asked the question: "If Alec Baldwin had been told it's a 'cold' gun, would he put it to his head and pressed the trigger without personally checking it?"
-
Someone asked the question: "If Alec Baldwin had been told it's a 'cold' gun, would he put it to his head and pressed the trigger without personally checking it?"
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 13:30 last edited by@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Someone asked the question: "If Alec Baldwin had been told it's a 'cold' gun, would he put it to his head and pressed the trigger without personally checking it?"
Mr. Lee did it.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 13:34 last edited by Jolly
Yeah, and if I checked every abnormal machine diff specified by most laboratory guidelines, the TAT on a CBC would be 4 hours. So, one prudently observes the guidelines and ignores them under some circumstances. But that presumes the person reading the hemogram knows what he is doing.
The SAG rule is the SAG rule. How many actors know how to press check a 1911? Look for the loaded indicator on a MP5? Most guys don't. The wife was watching one of those Hallmark mystery things the other night and the "detective" was waving his Glock around - with his finger in the trigger guard - like a drunken sailor. In real life, it's not a matter of whether the guns goes off in an accidental discharge, it's a matter of when it happens.
Granted, a Peacemaker is not a Glock or a 1911, but there's still a definitive way to check to see if it's loaded, and there is a very specific way to make sure it's carried with an empty chamber under the hammer (the Colt Army has no fire pin block). I don't expect a novice to know the correct manual of arms for a Colt 45 revolver.
-
Yeah, and if I checked every abnormal machine diff specified by most laboratory guidelines, the TAT on a CBC would be 4 hours. So, one prudently observes the guidelines and ignores them under some circumstances. But that presumes the person reading the hemogram knows what he is doing.
The SAG rule is the SAG rule. How many actors know how to press check a 1911? Look for the loaded indicator on a MP5? Most guys don't. The wife was watching one of those Hallmark mystery things the other night and the "detective" was waving his Glock around - with his finger in the trigger guard - like a drunken sailor. In real life, it's not a matter of whether the guns goes off in an accidental discharge, it's a matter of when it happens.
Granted, a Peacemaker is not a Glock or a 1911, but there's still a definitive way to check to see if it's loaded, and there is a very specific way to make sure it's carried with an empty chamber under the hammer (the Colt Army has no fire pin block). I don't expect a novice to know the correct manual of arms for a Colt 45 revolver.
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 13:58 last edited by@Jolly said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
How many actors know how to press check a 1911? Look for the loaded indicator on a MP5? Most guys don't.
There were "safety" conferences on the set which Mr. Baldwin did not attend.
And, sorry, checking every lab machine is not the same as pointing a potentially lethal firearm at someone.
SAG guidelines:
https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf
Doesn't say the armorer is responsible, does it?
Much more at the link.
Baldwin failed
manymost of these guidelines, including using the weapon as a "pointer" to direct cast and crew while not filming. -
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 14:25 last edited by
Boilerplate that I'm sure is rarely followed exactly.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 14:28 last edited by
@Jolly said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Boilerplate that I'm sure is rarely followed exactly.
Yeah. Let's see how well that argument works in a malpractice suit.
"Doctor, what was hospital policy...."
If you don't follow policy, you're doomed.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 14:31 last edited by Jolly
No, doctors bury their mistakes.
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 14:37 last edited by
@Jolly said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Boilerplate that I'm sure is rarely followed exactly.
Exactly
Every step, every time
No exception
-
wrote on 13 Jul 2024, 14:55 last edited by
I rephrase my question:
"If you had been told it's a 'cold' gun, would you put it to your head and press the trigger without personally checking it?"
I wouldn't.
