Baldwin is a liberal Democrat. As a consequence, every loon without critical consideration of the facts will kneejerk to a conclusion that the liberal is wrong regardless of what he does.

The loons would have you believe that if one relies on any expert, that if you don’t personally check the work of the expert and someone is hurt, one is criminally liable.

If a gas company employee repairs my furnace and it blows, then it’s my fault if it blows, if I didn’t inspect the work. Forget that I don’t know jack shit about furnaces.

Years ago, I had the brakes repaired on my car. I was driving the car on a country road the next day when the front left wheel came flying off. The wheel bounded down the road and landed on the hood, then the top of the cab of a pickup. Three teenagers were in the front seat of that pickup. Miraculously, nobody was injured, but if they had, a loon in analyzing fault would first ask if the driver was a liberal or a fellow loon. The liberal would have had to take out his tire wrench the day before and assure that the lugs were tight. I hadn’t, then guilty of murder.

I disagree and posted why in the other thread.

does cause one to wonder-

if a substantial donation to NM Dem committee
or other NM polititical entity might have

accidentally occurred

Your examples are inapt because a homeowner and a driver do not have an independent duty to check the work of an auto mechanic or gas company employee.

Here's a better example:

You're driving your car and come to a stop sign at a busy intersection. You tell the passenger to let you know when there are no vehicles coming from the right.

He says all is clear, you pull out, and a car slams into you from the right.

You tell the officer you relied on the passenger to say when it was clear. He:

A. Lets you go.

B. Cites you for running a stop sign and/or arrests you for negligent homicide.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
does cause one to wonder-

if a substantial donation to NM Dem committee
or other NM polititical entity might have

accidentally occurred

Always does.

“Donations” is nothing but a BRIBE!

Something that America created, and American politicians thrive on.

Here is an idea.

No donations.

No free anything.

Any individual wishes to stand for office cannot spend more than a certain, limited , amount of money in hie or her campaign.

This amount should be paid by the government to anyone getting a certain number of pre-votes!

End of story.

Fuckwits like Trump would never make it, let alone totally brainless women like Kamala!

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
does cause one to wonder-

if a substantial donation to NM Dem committee
or other NM polititical entity might have

accidentally occurred

Is the Prosecutor a Dem? I do not know and you do not either, nor do you have any indication of what you suppose is the case.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Here's a better example:

You're driving your car and come to a stop sign at a busy intersection. You tell the passenger to let you know when there are no vehicles coming from the right.

He says all is clear, you pull out, and a car slams into you from the right.

You tell the officer you relied on the passenger to say when it was clear. He:

A. Lets you go.

B. Cites you for running a stop sign and/or arrests you for negligent homicide.

The difference is the actor with a gun is not permitted by industry standard to change the condition of the firearm. The rules are designed to prevent the novice from making a firearm dangerous. Those rules work when the armorer follows them.

There are legal theories that Baldwin as an active could be criminally liable actual knowledge or having been in a position that he should know the condition of the firearm was unsafe. The second is what the prosecution went for given the issues on set and Baldwin’s position as Producer. That is not my ideas in it. That is what the prosecutor said. Those facts appear to not be present.

Now, if the state was to pass a pro se criminal negligent homicide law in the head of the actor. I am sure the industry would shift, create more rules for confirmation by the end handler. Such a law would be fought tooth and nail. It would create criminal liability under Baldwin fact pattern. I would not have a problem with that.

Another example is I take a novice hunting. I had him a safe condition firearm. He is not to change condition of the firearm under my supervision while we walk. Whether one likes it, Baldwin’s job is to take the firearm declared safe by the armorer, and point it at the camera as directed, even pulling the trigger.

Duke Wayne did it for decades. Nothing went wrong because the experts followed best practices.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Is the Prosecutor a Dem?
I do not know and you do not either, —- .

you truly are pathetic -
1st it is Santa Fe NM
the chance of an R in the office is nil
2nd
Mary Carmack-Altwies was elected as a Democrat
easily found by anyone with internet-

do you not do any research before you spout

quote:

The difference is the actor with a gun is not permitted by industry standard to change the condition of the firearm. The rules are designed to prevent the novice from making a firearm dangerous. Those rules work when the armorer follows them.

Checking to see if a weapon is loaded is not changing the condition of the firearm.

quote:

Another example is I take a novice hunting. I had him a safe condition firearm. He is not to change condition of the firearm under my supervision while we walk. Whether one likes it, Baldwin’s job is to take the firearm declared safe by the armorer, and point it at the camera as directed, even pulling the trigger.

In your hypothetical, the novice should not accept a firearm from you and take your word it's in safe condition. He's remiss for not checking himself, and you sound remiss for not instructing him properly.

I can't say for certain the prosecutor was wrong for dropping charges against Baldwin. I don't know the elements of the crime in NM. But I will say I think it's the wrong decision if the rationale is a negligent industry standard or the fact Baldwin relied on someone else to check whether the gun is loaded.

The novice should never change the condition of the firearm from dosage to unsafe. The hypo requires the novice to charge the weapon(change the condition).

Novice, “I need to make sure this is safe. So, I run the charging handle.”

Well, novice guy just made the chamber hot.

I have a hard time calling the industry standards negligent. They work when the armed or follows them. That is all one can ask if a soldier industry standard that being it works when followed.

Now, we would show clear to the novice before handing them the firearm w instruction not to change that condition.

The armorer declared the firearm safe, the actor is not permitted (for good reason) to start changing the condition over the expert in controls declaration.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Here's a better example:

You're driving your car and come to a stop sign at a busy intersection. You tell the passenger to let you know when there are no vehicles coming from the right.

He says all is clear, you pull out, and a car slams into you from the right.

You tell the officer you relied on the passenger to say when it was clear. He:

A. Lets you go.

B. Cites you for running a stop sign and/or arrests you for negligent homicide.

And you claim that you never put your foot on the gas pedal. The car was driving itself.

And yet, even other actors have asserted that it is incumbent upon the actor to double-check the condition of the firearm. Of course, it is the defense lawyer's job to find someone else to blame. Alec Baldwin is guilty of extreme idiocy. At the very least he should be banned from using any firearm, real or replica, on any set in the future. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
does cause one to wonder-

if a substantial donation to NM Dem committee
or other NM polititical entity might have

accidentally occurred

Always does.

“Donations” is nothing but a BRIBE!

Something that America created, and American politicians thrive on.

Here is an idea.

No donations.

No free anything.

Any individual wishes to stand for office cannot spend more than a certain, limited , amount of money in hie or her campaign.

This amount should be paid by the government to anyone getting a certain number of pre-votes!

End of story.

Fuckwits like Trump would never make it, let alone totally brainless women like Kamala!

That might result in people standing for office for reasons of public service rather than because they want to jump onto the gravy train

You'd need to ban all paid lobbyists too, or ban anyone who has held office from becoming a lobbyist for a few years.

If Baldwin was a Republican loon, you all would singing another tune. Now, there’s some truth for you. A wise man would heed this truth.

Not exactly true. Rolland is not team Faction. We have an honest disagreement as to what and why criminal liability should attach.

He is arguing a more pro se standard. I say more pro se, because pro se requires a specific stature, if this then X penalty. I am arguing a case law foreseeability standard.

And yes, not all killings are crimes.
A pack of mixed pit bulls just killed a woman here. KSP had closed the case. Local Sheriff is meeting with me Monday, but without facts that create foreseeability these dogs would kill/bite there will be No manslaughter charges.

Right now, that is the way it is leaning.

Hopefully, this will spur the Legislature to act with a statute your dogs leave your property and kill someone manslaughter. I doubt that will get over, but we will try.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
And yet, even other actors have asserted that it is incumbent upon the actor to double-check the condition of the firearm. Of course, it is the defense lawyer's job to find someone else to blame. Alec Baldwin is guilty of extreme idiocy. At the very least he should be banned from using any firearm, real or replica, on any set in the future. Regards, Bill

If Baldwin checked to see if it was loaded would you expect him to know the difference between blanks and real/hot ammo? Should he have unloaded the firearm?

quote:

If Baldwin was a Republican loon, you all would singing another tune

but that is why your a barrister --
BS is a requirement

Please look up the meaning of the words "check" and "change." They are different.

If Baldwin had unloaded or loaded the firearm he would have changed its condition. But that's not what happened.

I'm not arguing Baldwin should have unloaded the gun himself. He should have checked the firearm's condition, then handed it back to the armorer when he saw it was loaded.

If Baldwin had checked, the woman's death wouldn't have happened.

By opening the we pin he is changing the condition of a declared safe firearm.

Specifically, with a single action, he would have to cock it (half cock), and start removing rounds to see if they contain bullets.

He thinks they are bullets, he removes them and replaces because he knows, only to turn the gun live wo anyone knowing.

The industry does not permit, for god reason, actors to do that.

The armorer is at fault. Baldwin may have been due manslaughter if he had knee or should have known something about the production to make death foreseen. Per the dismissal, that is not the case.

Let us assume Baldwin was standing there when armed or loaded it. The armorer declared the rounds and gun safe. Baldwin knows what?

He knows the expert in charge of the production at that time has declared safe. He takes position as instructed by the director.

Again, I cannot call the industry practices on face negligent. When followed, as the overwhelming are, no one dies.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Please look up the meaning of the words "check" and "change." They are different.

If Baldwin had unloaded or loaded the firearm he would have changed its condition. But that's not what happened.

I'm not arguing Baldwin should have unloaded the gun himself. He should have checked the firearm's condition, then handed it back to the armorer when he saw it was loaded.

If Baldwin had checked, the woman's death wouldn't have happened.

Could Baldwin have known that there were rounds in the cylinder simply by looking at the front of the cylinder?

Should he have known the difference between a live round and a blank?

Not making excuses for him; just wondering what expectatations there would have been from him.

I don't know whether Baldwin violated industry standards. You assume he complied with industry standard, but I haven't seen evidence one way or another.

If the industry standard is to violate the rules of gun safety, the whole industry is reckless and/or negligent. That can happen, you know: a whole industry can be negligent.

Industry standard (by itself, without government regulation behind it) is not a defense as a matter of law, but may be a factor for the jury to consider. If I'm wrong on the common law, I'd like to see a case that says otherwise.

A lot of dancing around the issue. The issue is does a lay person have the right to rely on an expert with the use of dangerous objects? Must an airline pilot check the airline mechanics work? Must I check my electricians work.

And I still say that if you or I did what Baldwin did, we'd be behind bars waiting trial and praying for a good jury.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
A lot of dancing around the issue. The issue is does a lay person have the right to rely on an expert with the use of dangerous objects? Must an airline pilot check the airline mechanics work? Must I check my electricians work.

I say no to your question. Possession or use of certain inherently dangerous objects, like a car or a gun, creates a non-delegable duty to operate it safely. You can't excuse yourself by saying you relied on the passenger to say if the intersection was clear. You can't excuse yourself from killing someone by saying you relied on someone else to make sure it wasn't loaded.

Let's be honest. Baldwin is rich enough to afford first-rate lawyers who may have spooked an over-worked prosecutor. And after all, Baldwin is a celebrity, which would insure media coverage.

If it were you or me, the prosecutor would be prosecuting, just to make an example of us.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
does cause one to wonder-

if a substantial donation to NM Dem committee
or other NM polititical entity might have

accidentally occurred

Always does.

“Donations” is nothing but a BRIBE!

Something that America created, and American politicians thrive on.

Here is an idea.

No donations.

No free anything.

Any individual wishes to stand for office cannot spend more than a certain, limited , amount of money in hie or her campaign.

This amount should be paid by the government to anyone getting a certain number of pre-votes!

End of story.

Fuckwits like Trump would never make it, let alone totally brainless women like Kamala!

That might result in people standing for office for reasons of public service rather than because they want to jump onto the gravy train

You'd need to ban all paid lobbyists too, or ban anyone who has held office from becoming a lobbyist for a few years.

I'm all for it!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
A lot of dancing around the issue. The issue is does a lay person have the right to rely on an expert with the use of dangerous objects? Must an airline pilot check the airline mechanics work? Must I check my electricians work.

I say no to your question. Possession or use of certain inherently dangerous objects, like a car or a gun, creates a non-delegable duty to operate it safely. You can't excuse yourself by saying you relied on the passenger to say if the intersection was clear. You can't excuse yourself from killing someone by saying you relied on someone else to make sure it wasn't loaded.

Let's be honest. Baldwin is rich enough to afford first-rate lawyers who may have spooked an over-worked prosecutor. And after all, Baldwin is a celebrity, which would insure media coverage.

If it were you or me, the prosecutor would be prosecuting, just to make an example of us.

Agreed! I know you hate that, bit you can be reasonable at times

quote:

Baldwin is a liberal Democrat. As a consequence, every loon without critical consideration of the facts will kneejerk to a conclusion that the liberal is wrong regardless of what he does.

Kinda like you jumping on the Steele dossier, huh cat?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
And I still say that if you or I did what Baldwin did, we'd be behind bars waiting trial and praying for a good jury.

Was he reckless in his handling of the revolver after it was handed to him? Had he used it as the script called for would he have ever pointed it at anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
And yet, even other actors have asserted that it is incumbent upon the actor to double-check the condition of the firearm. Of course, it is the defense lawyer's job to find someone else to blame. Alec Baldwin is guilty of extreme idiocy. At the very least he should be banned from using any firearm, real or replica, on any set in the future. Regards, Bill

If Baldwin checked to see if it was loaded would you expect him to know the difference between blanks and real/hot ammo? Should he have unloaded the firearm?

He knew it was a real firearm. If he could not be certain of it's safety, he should not have pointed it at another person and pulled the trigger. This reminds me; I keep seeing reports that he was practicing his fast draw technique and the gun "went off". Let's be clear; the gun went off because he pulled the goddam trigger. Regards, Bill

Jim, I don’t know how many or who jumped on the Steele dossier. I didn’t I always had a wait and see position, so you cant saddle me with that.

All this talk about accountability?
Could not have been Baldwins fault?? He never cocked or pulled the trigger.
Single action? You know he would have had to cock the hammer.
But he never pulled the trigger.
One lie after another..
Wether or not he his lawfully convicted or not.
The guy is full of shit.
Would appear he purgered himself.
I thought there was accountability for purgery in a court of law?

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Jim, I don’t know how many or who jumped on the Steele dossier. I didn’t I always had a wait and see position, so you cant saddle me with that.

Doug......we all at times have a bit of a lack of objectivity.

You can't just aim that at us loons, you leftards have the same problems.

You're a good guy, you know,it and I know it.

Jim, this something we agree upon: Both sides lack objectivity. As Lane says, we ride for our brand, er, tribe.

I think that "objectivity" is not a left or right thing. The lack of it is a human condition. The closest it gets is in science.

https://www.google.com/search?...ABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

Take your pick from the above search.

So, I choose this one:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/objective-reality-2/

You don’t see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy
Objective reality exists, but what can you know about it that isn't subjective. According to some neuroscientists, not much.

================================================

So, that's why I say Reality is what it is, regardless of one's preconceptions.

Others disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Jim, this something we agree upon: Both sides lack objectivity. As Lane says, we ride for our brand, er, tribe.

I don't agree as to myself. I'm no right-winger. They would kick me out of the tribe even if I did try to join. If I have to carry a brand, I think I'm a moderate liberal.

I'm inclined to blame Baldwin, both as the primary direct cause of the death and as the movie's producer who should have had better safety protocols. I don't mean to prejudge him, but think he should have gone to trial to determine his guilt or innocence.

I don't care for Baldwin's politics--he's anti-gun, despite profiting off of them. But his portrayals of Trump on SNL are damned funny.