h/t Gateway Pundit
O frabjous day!
Callou! Callay!
We told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you,
and explained to all comers, in excruciating detail, how Baldwin was not legally responsible to any whit for the shooting on the set of Rust, explaining the safety rules and the chain of culpability using metric fucktons of pixels and internet bandwidth.
We explained to you how charging not-the-guy-responsible for an accidental shooting with not-his-gun on a movie set, with a weapon not-loaded-by-him, with multiple actual responsible parties available and culpable for criminally negligent homicide and injury could have been accomplished with consummate ease, if only the state of New Mexico had simply possessed detectives and prosecutors thereabouts with IQs above the mid-80s.
Alas, they have no such. More's the pity.
This entire incident could have been settled once and for all by no later than the January after it happened, and been long-since over and done. But one prosecutor's ego was bigger than the Grand Canyon, and twice as empty. Her picture is in the legal dictionary under "Assclown".
We beat the horse, long past expired, into hardly-recognizable horse molecules explaining to the perpetually stupid how their idea of jurisprudence was a total travesty of justice, and so far beyond Retarded they couldn't even see Retarded in their rear view mirror if they'd used a telescope.
And then, we only get the presiding judge to admit the obvious, as the trial barely started, because the prosecution withheld evidence in a legal move so boneheadedly basic they even got it right in the trial in My Cousin Vinny.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
We also have a clip of the defense, testing the prosecution's case to see if it holds any water:
We now look forward to closing this tab, at long last, and will listen to the sound of millions of assholes sitting at home, and sucking it.
We look forward to enjoying good actor, and World's Biggest Jackass, Alec Baldwin, shutting the hell up forever on the topic of guns, achieving as he has a body count worthy of Teddy Kennedy, if not Shrillary Clinton and the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate.
And we beseech countless people - who should never offer a legal opinion on anything, because incapable - to take the karmic W you get for Baldwin being tainted on this topic forever, and just quietly go home, because it's all you were ever going to get.
The monkeys who're already digging in their diapers and winding up, we leave to their futile attempts. The schadenboner this news has given me will probably last so long I'll need to see a doctor after 4 24 40 hours.
Here's where even President Trump is wrong: I'll never get tired of winning.
22 comments:
And you were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, Aesop. Judge ruled prosecutorial misconduct by withholding "material evidence" from defense. Has nothing to do with the issue of Baldwin's guilt or innocence. Don't know whether the state will appeal, which they can. Baldwin was NOT acquitted.
The judge was looking for an excuse to end this farce, and the prosecution gave it to her on a platter. She dropped the hammer on them in 0.2 seconds.
Gone.
Dismissed, with prejudice.
Can't be refiled. Double jeopardy, and all that.
There's no appeal to that.
It's gone forever.
Sux to be you, Wayne. Keep swinging after the bell. Have a day!
I represented a client who had the misfortune of being considered a suspect by New Mexico authorities and I can attest that New Mexico has some of the worst DA's I have ever worked with. Arrogance and stupidity are a very dangerous combination. My client was ultimately exonerated, but only because his accuser was subsequently arrested herself. Baldwin is an asshole, but the New Mexico justice system is a hot mess.
Bottom line - regardless of trial outcome or appeal in the prior prosecuted case - is Baldwin and Ms. Whatevertheheckhernameis Armorer will have to live with this tragedy the rest of their collective lives...killing someone - whether by accident or intent - is not like in the movies (so to speak), you don't just move on, it stays with you (short of being a total callous/remorseless @#$%).
@Paul M.,
You're absolutely correct, and I made that very point about 2 1/2 years ago.
This is not something either of them will just "get over", unless they're sociopaths.
But the people that hate Baldwin both because he's an @$$hole, and an idiot on guns, couldn't see that point, in their haste to get a rope and form a lynch mob to hang him for an accident that was not even remotely his fault.
If the NM prosecutor were to pull her head out of a dark smelly place with a notable plopping sound, and go after the UPM who hired PropTart, the drug-addict incompetent with zero experience they hired as armorer, and the UPM and/or Line Producer who oversaw that hiring, and also didn't demand PropTart's immediate firing over earlier safety breeches on that very set, I would utter nothing but cheers.
But those relative nobodies, who do bear legitimate culpability for criminal negligence, didn't offer the NM prosecutor the same prestige she thought she'd get by bringing down an (innocent, but so what, right?) Hollywood star.
Instead, this persecution has done nothing but expose that entire office for the assclowns they are, over and over again since Day One.
Doesn’t suck to be me at all, Aesop. Can, and should be appealed to the Court of Appeals in NM. As I recall, you were the one who was so ignorant that you thought this was an Albuquerque case. You are an excellent nurse. You know very little about law and ZERO about New Mexico law.
I didn't think this was an Albuquerque case, I mis-typed it as such. I had previously correctly identified the venue. Nice try, and no points.
Meanwhile, while the prosecutorial retards have the bare right to appeal this, one of the other special prosecutors who resigned from this case resigned specifically because the prosecution suppressed this evidence.
"Erlinda Ocampo Johnson, a special prosecutor who resigned from the case, said Friday in an interview with Chris Cuomo that she left after learning of the potential evidence at the heart of the dismissal. “We have an obligation as prosecutors,” she said. “We have an obligation not only to the people, but to the defendant, and our obligation is to make sure that all the evidence is turned over."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/what-to-know-about-alec-baldwin-s-rust-trial-dismissal-and-what-s-next/ar-BB1pU5Bz
That goes beyond a simple mistake to deliberate willful prosecutorial misconduct, prejudicial to a fair trial.
The odds of an appellate court, even NM's kangaroo court system, reversing misconduct deliberately prejudicial to a fair trial and overruling the trial judge's assessment of a dismissal with prejudice is slim to none.
The prosecutor should tip-toe away from this, if only to let her gang of idiots stop stepping on their own dicks every time they turn around.
Worse, these assclowns, by this misconduct, have opened the way for Gutierrez-Reed, who was actually the primary guilty party, and currently serving time for her conviction, to make a motion for a mistrial and retrial or even dismissal of conviction based on the same deliberately suppressed evidence, and she could very well argue the rounds were slipped in by the local 'tard who sold her the dummy and live ammo all mixed together.
And if that gets her off, the Inspector Clousseaus in this trial will be rightly seen as going after Baldwin and movie people to cover up for their buddy the local idiot's criminally reckless incompetence, after he sucked up to NM investigators.
That's gonna play real well in court, and the media, from coast to coast.
I wonder why would ANYBODY bring live ammunition to a movie set and shoot from a prop gun.
You want to shoot ?
Fine.
Get your own firearm and ammunition and keep them both the hell away from my movie set.
I accepted your legal arguments early on. Reluctantly. What got me was the comment about actors being trained monkeys and doing what they're told.
But still took joy in The Bad Baldwin's pain and suffering. If travesties of justice can happen to innocent J6 protestors, why not balance the karma a little with a PLT (Prog Lib Tard) like Baldwin?
And it's not over. The criminal case is over, but next comes civil, and if he wants this all to be over, he and his insurance companies need to pony up big bux in a settlement.
Baldwin's suffering because he's been the Big Mouth of Anti-Gun Jackassery fall under dulce et decorum est.
I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting a huge civil payday.
Without a criminal conviction, that case is slim pickings.
It's also as vacuous as blaming the death on Hutchins herself, for showing up for work that day.
Which, at the end of the argument, is the only thing Baldwin is guilty of.
If Baldwin can be judicially ass-raped for not-his-gun being loaded with not-his-bullets and launching not-what-anyone-on-a-movie-is ever-allowed-to-launch, why shouldn't I be able to prosecute and sue you when your fireplace or your cows cause global warming and my house gets flooded?
Butt-screwing Justice helps no one.
My inquisitive mind wonders if DA's can be inserted on the Brady List, effectively ending their careers?
Two tiered justice IMO.
But I am not fractionally as enlightened as you are.
Also in my opinion, the gun in your hand is your responsibility. You own what you do with it
but I'm just funny that way.
maxx
It wasn't his gun.
What he did with it was act out as scene, per his employment requirements.
If someone hands you a birthday cake, and you light the candles and place it on a table, and it turns out they put a bomb in it without telling you, do you bear the responsibility for the bombing deaths at the party?
Show your work, and explain this under your theory of responsibility for total omniscience.
That's all you're suggesting here.
In order to be criminally negligent, Baldwin would have to have a duty to do something, and fail to do it.
His only duty in the event was to act out a scene. Which he did.
He had no duty to load, supervise, or "check" the prop gun.
He had, in fact, a duty to let the hired and paid-for experts assume the responsibility they were hired to undertake, and interfering with that would actually be actionable against him if he interfered.
That's why they have a prop department, and an armorer.
(All of whom on this picture were thoroughly incompetent and derelict: there's your culprits.)
In other news, life isn't soccer, and you don't assume total liability simply because you're the last person who touched the ball, which has been legally true under any theory of torts, even criminal ones.
It wasn't his gun.
What he did with it was act out a scene, per his employment requirements.
If someone hands you a birthday cake, and you light the candles and place it on a table, and it turns out they put a bomb in it without telling you, do you bear the responsibility for the bombing deaths at the party?
Show your work, and explain this under your theory of responsibility for total omniscience.
That's all you're suggesting here.
In order to be criminally negligent, Baldwin would have to have a duty to do something, and fail to do it.
His only duty in the event was to act out a scene. Which he did.
He had no duty to load, supervise, or "check" the prop gun.
He had, in fact, a duty to let the hired and paid-for experts assume the responsibility they were hired to undertake, and interfering with that would actually be actionable against him if he interfered.
That's why they have a prop department, and an armorer.
(All of whom on this picture were thoroughly incompetent and derelict: there's your culprits.)
In other news, life isn't soccer, and you don't assume total liability simply because you're the last person who touched the ball, which has been legally true under any theory of torts, even criminal ones.
Pilots aren't responsible when someone doesn't connect bolts inside the wing, and an engine falls off the plane.
Not even if they were flying it when it happened.
Why d'ya suppose that is, and makes perfect sense?
SMH. Doesn't matter that it was "not his gun" and "not his bullets". The gun, which he KNEW was a real, functional gun, was in HIS hand, and HIS finger pulled the trigger. You piss on New Mexico, while your home state is a shithole where shoplifting up to $1,000 is tolerated and the sidewalks are covered with human feces.
Stick to ER nursing, something you are actually good at.
Rant ahead, Wayne.
There's an ointment for that.
https://foreclosurepedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Butt-Hurt-Cream.png
I'll piss on any state that gives immunity to an obviously guilty person to go after an innocent one strictly because he's a celebrity. That's both asinine and illegal. That's why the judge threw this case out the minute they handed her a gold-plated excuse to do so on a platter.
And you don't get to cherry-pick facts to make your case either.
What Baldwin KNEW was that
1) it was a prop gun
2) by definition, prop guns are to be inherently harmless, and verified as same before hand-off to any actor, unless expressly declared "hot"
3) it had been loaded by the armorer - the production-designated subject matter expert on that set for all weapons - with dummy rounds
4) it was certified by the First A.D., in front of God and everybody, to be a "cold weapon", meaning it couldn't hurt anyone unless you beat someone over the head with it, or tried to swallow it whole.
What he DIDN'T KNOW was that
1) the PropTart was using real weapons for the production.
2) she couldn't tell dummy rounds from live rounds any better than she could tell her ass from a hole in the ground, as evidenced by there being other live rounds all over the set.
3) the 1st A.D., the person ultimately responsible for all safety on the entire production on every set in North America, and for this p.o.s. flick also the weapons handling assistant, flat-out lied about double-checking the PropTart's loading of the weapon, which is the entire reason for a weapons assistant, and he had no effing idea whether it was loaded with nothing, dummy rounds, blanks, live rounds, or nuclear weapons.
That makes both the people expressly, by custom and rule, directly and solely responsible for weapon safety, grossly criminally negligent even if no one was harmed, and criminally wholly responsible for the subsequent battery and manslaughter on DeSouza and Hutchins, respectively.
You can't hurdle over their guilt just to get to Baldwin either.
What you could do is make a case that the UPM who hired PropTart was also grossly negligent, because she was totally unqualified for the job; and also go after the Line Producer who didn't have her fired after the first blank round ND, which is why the entire camera department quit that morning. (And neither of those persons are named Alec Baldwin.)
In Saving Private Ryan, there's a scene where multiple members of Miller's squad throw grenades at a German MG position. If the prop and SFX guys had lied to the actors, and handed them live grenades instead of prop dummies, and four extras playing German soldiers had been blown to shit as a direct result, you don't get to skip over the prop and SFX guys' lies and deliberate criminal negligence, just so you could charge the actors who pulled the pins and threw the grenades "with their own hands", just because they touched them last, and the level of your scorching butthurt over that fact doesn't change it.
But that's the jackassical and recockulous standard you want to hold Baldwin to in this incident, contrary to basic legal tenets in multiple millennia of criminal tort law going back to Hammurabi.
Whatever it is you're good at, you should stick to it. Neither logic nor jurisprudence are on that list.
And now, it's over, you get what you deserved, as did Baldwin, and all you've got left to show for it is nursing the 3rd degree burns around your sphincter.
Let it go.
Aesop. You don’t get it. It was NOT about prosecuting Baldwin.
It was about finding a way for the well-connected armorer to escape her COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY for the death.
SHE could have been charged with multiple counts, including reckless endangerment, violations of various firearms laws and Regis, and other things, both criminal and civil, that could have left her imprisoned for YEARS in federal prisons, as well as dead broke, for the rest of her life.
Instead, under the guise of ‘getting’ Baldwin, she got a slap on the wrist, for which she is unlikely to serve more than a token sentence, in return for her ‘evidence’. That ‘evidence’ was promised to allow the prosecution to throw SOMEONE in jail, and get the DAs office the hook.
Why didn’t the DAs office want to convict Baldwin?
Because it would have tanked any future filming in that location. Money talks.
Nah.
Occam's Razor says it was about NM cops and prosecutors who couldn't find their backsides with both hands.
It's your blog and you can post or not post whatever you want.
And you are wrong. I did offer rebuttal to your inability to understand New Mexico law. To refresh your memory, here it is again. IANAL but neither are you, and a guy who teaches on this topic provides this reference.
State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955)
https://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-gilliam-288-p-2d-675-nm-sup-ct-1955/
"It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted."
That is New Mexico CASE LAW. Maybe the law is specifically different in La La Land, if so, please provide a relevant cite.
That's honest discussion. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to post my comment. Up to you.
And here's why quoting Brancass on this is a fail:
You and he both like to long jump right over the key phrase:
"without due caution and circumspection".
That (and every) production hiring an armorer who is legally and by terms of employment the subject-matter expert regarding all on-set weapons to manage, handle, and load all weapons, and ensure in this case it was only dummy rounds, and then having a second person (in this case, the 1st Assistant Director, and the person legally and by employment solely and entirely the ultimate person in charge of safety on every production set in North America) to double-check the armorer's safe loading practice, and who, in this case, loudly and publicly announced to Baldwin and every other person on-set that day, that it was a COLD (not loaded with anything that could go off) WEAPON, is what legal minds call due caution and circumspection.
QED
Game over.
You're done.
Especially so when the 1st AD admitted in his plea deal he never checked the loading, and the armorer was demonstrably blisteringly incompetent at her ONLY job.
Baldwin does not inherit their deliberate and consciously-concealed negligence (google mens rea), and they cannot be absolved for failing, in every respect, to do the exact job in the moment that they, and they alone, bear sole responsibility for fulfilling.
Due caution and circumspection is exercised in every instance by the use of an expert propmaster or armorer, and a separate person to double-check all loading.
You can't ignore reality to get the result you want, and the reality is that the fact that those two people were involved IS "due caution and circumspection" on the part of every actor on every set on every production, since ever.
That's why it's been the industry standard, with zero defects when followed, for decades.
The DA should have sussed that out in about 5 minutes, and Baldwin never should have been charged in the first place, because unless you can show evidence indicating proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin tampered with the gun or ammo after it was handed to him, the only people that can be held criminally negligent are the ones who failed to do their jobs with regard to that weapon and the ammunition placed into it.*
You can't impart their gross criminal negligence to anyone else. Period. Full stop.
(cont.)
(cont.)
For the Chief Witch Hunter D.A. to then also deliberately conceal from all parties the fact that, from the get-go, the fatal ammunition may have been co-mingled by Bubba Dumbfuck's Ammo Emporium in New Mexico, which would have absolved everybody on that set for the subsequent mishap, is beyond just incompetence, it's a conspiracy to defraud the entire criminal justice system.
At this point, Baldwin, Gutierrez-Reed, Halls, Hutchins' heirs, and DeSouza all have legal grounds to sue the NM D.A.'s office for civil damages, and the D.A. lawyers involved in that criminal conspiracy should be disbarred.
That's why the judge threw this case out so hard it didn't bounce once before landing in the gutter.
You don't get to skip to getting a rope by ignoring the "due caution and circumspection" followed on every movie and TV show since before you were born, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Any other approach to the reality of that incident is quite simply delusional.
Brancass, as an alleged lawyer, should know better.
You've had it explained to you in terms even a child could understand, times beyond counting.
That Brancass can't see obvious reality is his problem.
Whether it remains yours is your personal choice, but you either accept the actual facts, or you revert to irrational Baldwin-hatred for your answer.
Baldwin is free as a bird either way, so choose carefully, because the only one it affects most at this point in time, is you.
And that's why I've said what I said from Day One, and why I'm not wrong about this, and haven't ever been.
But what would a motion picture first aid employee know about set operations and set safety, with only twenty years' experience on nearly every movie lot in Hollywood, and on location on hundreds of TV shows and films? (Not coincidentally, that's just about twenty more years experience than you or Brancass has, to a metaphysical certainty. Shocking as it may be to you, I write about what I know.)
Gainsaying gets you zero additional points, as ever.
*(If the D.A. wanted to reach out for the UPM that hired Incompetent PropTart for failing to vet her qualifications before hiring her, no squawks here. If they want to go after the Line Producer for not directing the UPM to fire Incompetent PropTart after the prior ND with a blank, that would also be a reasonable course of action and legal theory that fits the actual facts. Those people set up the situation that happened, and hired the fucktards who ultimately ensured it did. Neither of them is named Alec Baldwin. Their names can be located online in about three or four mouseclicks, from the low-budget hell production company in GA who employs them on much of their schlock crapola.)
Post a Comment