Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

[BoSoxGal]

Sue is exactly right, items of evidence are routinely destroyed or consumed in their entirety during forensic testing conducted in the investigatory process. In the majority of instances there is nothing nefarious afoot; I have to acknowledge that in some cases forensic testing has been found to be inept or intentionally skewed in some way by both corrupt forensic lab technicians or officials and/or by police/prosecutors.

What I’m puzzled about is exactly for whom Jarl & liberty believe ‘the fix is in’? Clearly the fix is not in for Alec Baldwin, who still lives under threat of criminal prosecution despite clear evidence the state lacks a solid case. It was the state/FBI who ‘destroyed’ the gun during testing, so clearly that wasn’t done so the fix could be in for Baldwin, if anything it makes it impossible for the defense to run independent testing on the actual gun used in the incident to establish faulty firing or misfiring was possible, they would be limited to similar guns which is obviously far from ideal.

Maybe Jarl thinks the fix is in for the state - he tends to be more antigovernment- and liberty thinks the fix is somehow in for Baldwin, because of the state’s actions which have nothing to do with how much money Baldwin has or how excellent his defense attorneys might be.

Anyway there is no fix in here - it’s an ugly mess which is an example of shameful abuse of prosecutorial discretion and power, which will ultimately further erode public faith in the system and which in the process has literally put a target on Baldwin’s back if you believe we live in a country full of too many guns and too many unstable people and the internet is loud with people braying that Baldwin deserves to be shot dead like Halyna.

What a mess.

[Jarlaxle]

Alec Baldwin, of course. If it had happened to me, I'd be in jail, where he belongs. There is absolutely no excuse for destroying the gun. The obvious question: could it shoot without pulling the trigger. (If it's an 1873 Colt Peacemaker, the answer is yes.) There is no reason to destroy it testing that. Indeed, that would be counterproductive.

(I'm not and do not claim to be a forensic expert...however, I am quite familiar with firearms and everything I have posted here was confirmed by a gunsmith.)

[Sue U]

Alec Baldwin, of course. If it had happened to me, I'd be in jail, where he belongs.

Why does he (or would you) belong in jail?

There is absolutely no excuse for destroying the gun.

What do you think the gun is needed for? Why is there no excuse for destroying it?

The obvious question: could it shoot without pulling the trigger. (If it's an 1873 Colt Peacemaker, the answer is yes.) There is no reason to destroy it testing that. Indeed, that would be counterproductive.

How is it "counterproductive"?

The question is not whether "an" 1873 Colt Peacemaker could shoot without pulling the trigger, it's whether *this particular* gun could and did do that (assuming that was in fact the gun involved). And the testing to determine that may very well involve taking the thing apart and testing components in a way that destroys the gun itself. I don't know, it's not my area, that's exactly why we have expert witnesses. I have had several defective products cases where the forensic tests destroyed the product itself, as well as numerous cases where the product has been destroyed, discarded or otherwise no longer existed long before trial. It's simply not always necessary to have the thing itself as evidence.

And assuming the gun Baldwin had could and did fire without the trigger being pulled, why do you think he should be charged (and convicted!) under the New Mexico statute? What are the elements of the crime? What is the factual proof that satisfies those elements beyond a reasonable doubt? Go ahead, make your case.

[MajGenl.Meade]

“The gun Alec Baldwin used in the shooting that killed Halyna Hutchins has not been destroyed by the state,” prosecutors noted in a statement after the hearing. “The gun is in evidence and is available for the defense to review.” They added, “The defense’s unexpected statement in the status hearing today that the gun had been destroyed by the state may be a reference to a statement in the FBI’s July 2022 firearms testing report that said damage was done to internal components of the gun during the FBI’s functionality testing."

Talk about loaded words . . .

[Big RR]

Sue--you raise a good point here; I am not aware of the evidentiary testing procedure (nor who gets to review the tangible evidence first), but if the determination that the gun could be fired without pulling the trigger were important to the case (and I don't see how it is, but let's assume it is), and if the prosecution were to destroy or damage the gun such that the defense could not independently exa mine the pistol for that determination, would the results of the prosecution's testing be admissible? I could see times where it may, especially if the testing were properly documented and could be reviewed by the defense for potential errors (or the gun were generally accepted to have that ability, in which case the test results are not really (or, at least are much less) relevant), and other times where it may not, but is there anyway the court would handle it? Up front, the court appoint a master (or the parties could agree on one) to perform the testing in the presence of the prosecution and defense counsel and experts using an agreed upon protocol (I've had that done in civil suits where the product in question has to be tested in a destructive manner), but would there be a different procedure in criminal cases?

BSG--your input would be welcome as well.

[Jarlaxle]

Why does he (or would you) belong in jail?

Because he KILLED A PERSON.

What do you think the gun is needed for? Why is there no excuse for destroying it?

Uhh, evidence.

The question is not whether "an" 1873 Colt Peacemaker could shoot without pulling the trigger, it's whether *this particular* gun could and did do that (assuming that was in fact the gun involved).

If it is ACTUALLY a Peacemaker, it can. They all can, it's inherent in the archaic design.

And the testing to determine that may very well involve taking the thing apart and testing components in a way that destroys the gun itself. I don't know, it's not my area, that's exactly why we have expert witnesses. I have had several defective products cases where the forensic tests destroyed the product itself, as well as numerous cases where the product has been destroyed, discarded or otherwise no longer existed long before trial. It's simply not always necessary to have the thing itself as evidence.

And assuming the gun Baldwin had could and did fire without the trigger being pulled, why do you think he should be charged (and convicted!) under the New Mexico statute? What are the elements of the crime? What is the factual proof that satisfies those elements beyond a reasonable doubt? Go ahead, make your case.

If he pulled the trigger, he's a murderer. Period, end of story. If he did NOT-negligent homicide, due to not practicing proper gun safety procedures. If he pointed the gun at anyone (he obviously did), it's his fault.

[Big RR]

If he pulled the trigger, he's a murderer.

How so? do you really believe that he intended to kill to person who was shot? To do so, he would have to have known the gun was loaded with live ammo--have you seen any evidence that he did? Guns are used in many films and there is an armorer who is relied upon by the actors to provide them guns properly loaded for the use (here with blanks or some sort of rounds with a loud report (or maybe no rounds at all), and reliance on the person is reasonable (much as you would rely that the car you drive has working brakes or the blacony on the set will hold the weight it needs to hold.

[BoSoxGal]

Killing a person is not a reason for a prison sentence is many cases, as everyone reading here knows every well. I strongly believe that some here are too blinded by their loathing of Baldwin to see reason. If the same set of facts were attached to Jon Voight or James Woods or Clint Eastwood I would suspect the MAGA crowd would see everything entirely differently. As it is they are on the interwebs braying for his lifelong imprisonment or for him to be shot to death just like Halyna. I hope Baldwin has good security.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm a little surprised that Baldwin claims not to have pulled the trigger unless, of course, that it happens to be true. Plenty of actors pull the trigger (yes I know it was a rehearsal and not an actual take) and fire at the camera because that is what the scene calls for. So to me it's immaterial whether or not he did actually pull it because he has a right to believe that is is not loaded. Armorers etc. Now he may well - I don't know - bear some reasonable blame because as producer he chose the armorer (I am speculating here because I don't know if this is true) although she was incompetent and he hired her because she was cheap or as a favor to a friend or whatever and did not verify her qualifications or he was in some way responsible for live ammo being present. That is a separate question but it does not appear to be the basis of his (now abandoned) prosecution.

[Joe Guy]

I read this thread this morning and then got into my car and turned on my iTunes music (set at random play) and this song came on. It sorta fits in here....

[Sue U]

Sue--you raise a good point here; I am not aware of the evidentiary testing procedure (nor who gets to review the tangible evidence first), but if the determination that the gun could be fired without pulling the trigger were important to the case (and I don't see how it is, but let's assume it is), and if the prosecution were to destroy or damage the gun such that the defense could not independently exa mine the pistol for that determination, would the results of the prosecution's testing be admissible? I could see times where it may, especially if the testing were properly documented and could be reviewed by the defense for potential errors (or the gun were generally accepted to have that ability, in which case the test results are not really (or, at least are much less) relevant), and other times where it may not, but is there anyway the court would handle it? Up front, the court appoint a master (or the parties could agree on one) to perform the testing in the presence of the prosecution and defense counsel and experts using an agreed upon protocol (I've had that done in civil suits where the product in question has to be tested in a destructive manner), but would there be a different procedure in criminal cases?

BSG--your input would be welcome as well.

Well I'm no expert in criminal practice, but the rules of evidence are the same whether in civil or criminal part, with the obvious addition of mandatory "Brady disclosure" of exculpatory evidence in criminal. If the prosecution tested the gun and found that it could fire without the trigger being pulled, that would have to be disclosed to the defense inasmuch as it bears on the statutory element of "due caution and circumspection," which has been equated to "conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful" via the concept of "criminal negligence." If the results of the state's testing were inconclusive but damaged the gun so that it could not be properly tested by the defense, then I would think the state would be precluded from arguing that Baldwin "must have" pulled the trigger and the defense would be permitted to rely on expert opinion more extensively about the propensity of these guns to fire without the trigger having been pulled, without having to show anything about specific causation for this particular gun.

[Jarlaxle]

Killing a person is not a reason for a prison sentence is many cases, as everyone reading here knows every well. I strongly believe that some here are too blinded by their loathing of Baldwin to see reason. If the same set of facts were attached to Jon Voight or James Woods or Clint Eastwood I would suspect the MAGA crowd would see everything entirely differently. As it is they are on the interwebs braying for his lifelong imprisonment or for him to be shot to death just like Halyna. I hope Baldwin has good security.

No, you're projecting.

[liberty]

It's good to be the king or one of the ruling class.

You imagine this only because it is what you would do (and literally are doing). Further, Alec Baldwin is not my "ally;" I certainly don't know him and from what I've read about him I think he's probably very much an asshole. But I am very much against charging people with crimes solely because they are famous or you don't like their politics.

.

Are you saying that you have principles? Why is it that I find that hard to believe? Don't you mean to say you have situational principles: something is right or wrong depending on who it is and the situation? In other words, do you think Donald Trump has the same rights as everyone else? I think not. How about this case: The brutal gang rape of German women and girls as young as eight at the end of WWII was justified because they were nazi? I don't think so. "Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter who it is." That is what I believe.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Are you saying that you have principles? Why is it that I find that hard to believe? Don't you mean to say you have situational principles: something is right or wrong depending on who it is and the situation? In other words, do you think Donald Trump has the same rights as everyone else? I think not. How about this case: The brutal gang rape of German women and girls as young as eight at the end of WWII was justified because they were nazi? I don't think so. "Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter who it is." That is what I believe.

I've no need to respond for Sue (especially against your silly WW2 false-equivalence) but you raise an interesting problem. Why should any atheist (not saying Sue is) NOT have situational ethics? There cannot be an absolute morality (or absolute anything) in a worldview that acknowledges only accidentalism as the basis of being. However . . .

As a despiser of Donald Trump (and his ilk), I must say he has the same rights as anyone else (I bet Sue agrees). He also has the same obligations as everyone else. But that is because I believe in objective morality - that there are universal "oughts", regardless of situations or my own feelings. Since no ought can exist by accident, as indeed rationality cannot exist by accident, Donald Trump is a prime example of an abuser both of rights and of obligations - his own. I would like to see him punished for his treason, his fomenting of hatred towards women, blacks, furriners, Moslems, democracy and human rights, not to mention the lies and generally foul existence he lives.

Hope that helps

[BoSoxGal]

Nothing is more laughable - and really quite disgusting- than the notion that religious people are more ethical than non religious people.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nothing is more laughable - and really quite disgusting- than the notion that religious people are more ethical than non religious people.

Good job nobody at all proposed that, then. Innit?

[Big RR]

As a despiser of Donald Trump (and his ilk), I must say he has the same rights as anyone else (I bet Sue agrees).

I do as well, and I'd bet many here do. But le's turn it around--do you beieve everyone should have the same rights as Trump? I know I do. Trump's position as an ex-president or money shouldn't give him any more rights than the run of the mill drug seller or other criminal, but I seriously doubt you believe that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As a despiser of Donald Trump (and his ilk), I must say he has the same rights as anyone else (I bet Sue agrees).

I do as well, and I'd bet many here do. But let's turn it around--do you believe everyone should have the same rights as Trump? I know I do. Trump's position as an ex-president or money shouldn't give him any more rights than the run of the mill drug seller or other criminal, but I seriously doubt you believe that.

er, no. You are correct. We all have the same "rights". That is, we are all to enjoy the same moral rights and prohibitions. I distinguish between passing "human" rights, subject to the whim and fancy of whoever (or whatever fad) is in power and universal moral right/wrong. Either there is a universal ethic or there is not. If there is not, then my opinion as to right and wrong could be whatever I fancied it to be - is is a social and temporary phenomenon determined by no rational basis whatever other than individual say-so.

I suppose in that sense, D Trump could claim that he has whatever rights he can grab - in which I suspect he would be joined by run of the mill drug sellers and other criminals. Not to mention the majority of present society??? (NB whether Christian or not).

[ex-khobar Andy]

I have to admit that, despite my hatred of all things Trump, I feel a little queasy about the present lawsuit by Ms Carroll that he raped her 25 years ago. I don't personally doubt her account but can someone be convicted of a heinous crime (yes I know it's a civil trial and not a criminal rape case per se) based on little evidence except the say-so of another? I'm of the 'better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent person be convicted' school of thought. We know Trump is an asshole and he has certainly, from his own mouth, given us all we need to know about his attitude to women as sexual objects, but is that enough to convict him (once again I know it's a civil trial - but finding for Ms Carroll in a defamation case will be equivalent to a conviction in the eyes of many)? In the same way they found for Mr Goldman in the Simpson murder case but they were not able to mount a successful criminal case.

[BoSoxGal]

I have to admit that, despite my hatred of all things Trump, I feel a little queasy about the present lawsuit by Ms Carroll that he raped her 25 years ago. I don't personally doubt her account but can someone be convicted of a heinous crime (yes I know it's a civil trial and not a criminal rape case per se) based on little evidence except the say-so of another? I'm of the 'better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent person be convicted' school of thought. We know Trump is an asshole and he has certainly, from his own mouth, given us all we need to know about his attitude to women as sexual objects, but is that enough to convict him (once again I know it's a civil trial - but finding for Ms Carroll in a defamation case will be equivalent to a conviction in the eyes of many)? In the same way they found for Mr Goldman in the Simpson murder case but they were not able to mount a successful criminal case.

Honestly, when I read this sentence I felt an overwhelming urge to want to punch you in your fucking face. Now I know you are a relatively decent human being, so I am going to suggest to you that you think long, and think hard, about that sentence you typed. And also think about all of your life experience and observations of our society and criminal and civil justice and ask yourself, is there ANY other crime where reasonable people suggest that the testimony of the VICTIM WITNESS is not sufficient upon which to convict? If someone came into your home and murdered a family member and the only evidence was YOUR eye witness testimony, would it ever occur to you in a thousand years to ask if that alone was sufficient evidence for a jury of peers from the community to consider in reaching a guilty verdict?

I am so fucking sickened by the deep seated bias in otherwise decent people to question the integrity of testimony given by victims of sexual assault. Including their unwillingness to believe CHILDREN! What the fuck is the allure of the PENIS that is gets a fucking pass on violent crime? Crime that destroys psyches and lives?

Fucking insidious misogyny in our sick society fucking sucks. And I make NO FUCKING APOLOGIES for being enraged and expressing it here, I don’t care who it offends. Too many women smiling and simpering and staying silent is why we are still mired in a fucked up toxic patriarchy where you would believe a woman’s word if it was the sole evidence that a burglar stole your big screen TV, but you question whether her testimonial evidence that a man ripped into her body against her will is sufficient to prove a crime.

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK MOTHERFUCK!