Alec Baldwin

[Rip Snorter]

As expected.  There are few of them with free passes to crime and the overwhelming numbers of the rest of us who would do hard time!  Look at the map of what Brandon won by county in the last election or more recent similar maps in England and France.  Not a one off.

[El Sobrante Kid]

I live in NM and I have followed all the local news stories. From the beginning it was pretty obvious that the investigation was poorly done second tier level work, and the prosecuting team was also second tier. If the investigation had been top notch, and the prosecution had been able to avoid the politics of taking on the huge film industry here in NM, they had a chance. Combine the glitches on the prosecutors side, along with AB having 3 top tier lawyers, there was no way he was going to be found guilty. This cluster**** rests solely on the shoulders of NM officials. What a shame!

[Rye Miles #13621]

9 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Well, negligent homicide.   As I said,  I don't like the decision,  and for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But I would rather have him walk than have a judge say that the State and its agents don't have to play by the rules.

I somewhat agree with you but this technicality about the ammunition was not entered in properly in my mind had nothing to do with what really happened . I can’t stand the fact that he walked completely free. 

[Rip Snorter]

No decent human could sleep soundly after a deadly event, despite the verdict.  He probably will.

[Subdeacon Joe]

6 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I somewhat agree with you but this technicality about the ammunition was not entered in properly in my mind had nothing to do with what really happened . I can’t stand the fact that he walked completely free. 

 

Still,  the State and its agents didn't play by the rules.   Which other rules doesn't the State have to follow?

 

Again,  I  don't like that he walks.   But I'd like even less a judge saying that rules don't apply to the State.  We see too much of that already. 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

34 minutes ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

I live in NM and I have followed all the local news stories. From the beginning it was pretty obvious that the investigation was poorly done second tier level work, and the prosecuting team was also second tier. If the investigation had been top notch, and the prosecution had been able to avoid the politics of taking on the huge film industry here in NM, they had a chance. Combine the glitches on the prosecutors side, along with AB having 3 top tier lawyers, there was no way he was going to be found guilty. This cluster**** rests solely on the shoulders of NM officials. What a shame!

If he'd been convicted, Hollywierd would have told New Mexico that the state would no longer get any more Hollywierd money.

[Rye Miles #13621]

32 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Still,  the State and its agents didn't play by the rules.   Which other rules doesn't the State have to follow?

 

Again,  I  don't like that he walks.   But I'd like even less a judge saying that rules don't apply to the State.  We see too much of that already. 

I can’t help but think that judge was a little biased in her ruling. Would she have ruled the same way if the situation was reversed? Personally I don’t think so. Justice is a rocky road. It can go either way and the judge has a little too much power but I’m not a lawyer so I  could be wrong. 

[Rye Miles #13621]

So according to legal experts on Fox the prosecution withheld evidence that could or could not help the defense. According to all them the judge had no choice but to dismiss the case. I’ll have to admit I was wrong and biased or not the judge did what she HAD to do. End of my rants.☺️

[Subdeacon Joe]

54 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

So according to legal experts on Fox the prosecution withheld evidence that could or could not help the defense. According to all them the judge had no choice but to dismiss the case. I’ll have to admit I was wrong and biased or not the judge did what she HAD to do. End of my rants.☺️

 

Procedural Penalty.  

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

There are 2 tiers of justice, one for the common man and one for the elite. Contrary to popular folk lores, Justice is not blind.

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

I totally understand why the trial ended as it did.  I don't like discussing "playing" by rules.  Let's go with following the rules.  That said, I really can't see what Defense Counsel would have done if they had that little bag of cartridges anyway.  Baldwin was charged with Involuntary Manslaughter because he voluntarily placed himself in a position of pointing a gun that he knew full well was a "real" gun directly at a person and shooting her, causing her death and serious injury to another.  Nothing in or not in that little bag could possibly have changed that.  The defense guy said himself additional evidence MIGHT have changed how defense counsel developed their strategy at trial.  That's all.  At this point I don't see how that little bag's contents would or should have changed how the prosecution approached strategy either.  Everyone knows and no one disputes Alec Baldwin shot Halyna Hutchins.  Something is terribly wrong with our "system," if he can't be tried by a jury for that going forward.

[Subdeacon Joe]

4 minutes ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

Nothing in or not in that little bag could possibly have changed that. 

 

Which isn't the point.  The prosecution team didn't follow the rules.  (gee....team, rules.....sounds like a game).  If I have to follow every iota, jot, and tittle of the rules, the State should, and must, be held to the same standard.  If the State doesn't have to follow the rules, why have the rules?

Sort of like a football team trying a 75 yard field goal and the defense gets a roughing the kicker penalty.  Ain't no way that the kicker could have made that 75 yard field goal, but now they have a first down, and might be able to score.  

[Texas Jack Black]

What I find very troubling is that most on this site pre judged him

Without really knowing all the evidence.What does that say about you.?

 

Best Wishes

 

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

11 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Which isn't the point.  The prosecution team didn't follow the rules.  (gee....team, rules.....sounds like a game).  If I have to follow every iota, jot, and tittle of the rules, the State should, and must, be held to the same standard.  If the State doesn't have to follow the rules, why have the rules?

Sort of like a football team trying a 75 yard field goal and the defense gets a roughing the kicker penalty.  Ain't no way that the kicker could have made that 75 yard field goal, but now they have a first down, and might be able to score.  

I know that isn't the point.  I said I understand why the trial ended as it did.  And sports analogies are not going to cut it here.  Again, my point is everyone knows and no one disputes Alec Baldwin shot Halyna Hutchins.  Something is terribly wrong with our "system," if he can't be tried by a jury for that going forward. In my little world, that's not to be overlooked.  

[Rye Miles #13621]

16 minutes ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

I know that isn't the point.  I said I understand why the trial ended as it did.  And sports analogies are not going to cut it here.  Again, my point is everyone knows and no one disputes Alec Baldwin shot Halyna Hutchins.  Something is terribly wrong with our "system," if he can't be tried by a jury for that going forward. In my little world, that's not to be overlooked.  

They can appeal, I hope they do but the lead prosecutor dropped out.

[J-BAR #18287]

38 minutes ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

Something is terribly wrong with our "system," if he can't be tried by a jury for that going forward. In my little world, that's not to be overlooked.  

More attempts to prosecute after dismissal would violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment;  it would be "double jeopardy".  Without that protection each of us could be prosecuted multiple times for the same offense.  No trial would ever be over until the prosecution gave up.  The system isn't wrong just because a trial didn't render the verdict we wanted.

 

I agree that he violated basic safe gun handling rules, and like every other competitive shooter I wish he could have been held accountable.  The state blew it.  Just like the range officer who fails to enforce a DQ for sweeping someone.

 

 

 

 

[Cypress Sun]

2 hours ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

I know that isn't the point.  I said I understand why the trial ended as it did.  And sports analogies are not going to cut it here.  Again, my point is everyone knows and no one disputes Alec Baldwin shot Halyna Hutchins.  Something is terribly wrong with our "system," if he can't be tried by a jury for that going forward. In my little world, that's not to be overlooked.  

 

The prosecution violated Baldwins civil rights by knowingly not disclosing evidence during/after discovery. Doesn't matter whether the evidence had any bearing on the case at hand or not. You can't present evidence at trial without allowing the defense to have a chance to see it. That's why all citizens rights are protected by the Constitutional Amendments.

 

The sloppy, awkward, inept presentation, presented by the sloppy, awkward and inept prosecutors seemed doomed to fail from the start. Simply put, they had three years to put together a complete, legal case against Baldwin and failed to do so. Much to the chagrin of many people, including myself, Baldwin walked due to this ineptitude. 

 

1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

They can appeal, I hope they do but the lead prosecutor dropped out.

 

There won't be any appeals by Baldwin. This trial is over and he can't be charged again for the same crime. The same cannot be said for the armorer who may very well get off due to this 'new evidence'.

[Texas Jack Black]

 And some actually want to retry him. 😵

[El Sobrante Kid]

59 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 And some actually want to retry him. 😵

The case was dismissed "with prejudice", which means that the state of NM CANNOT retry Baldwin. It is over!

 

ETA- I just read that the state can appeal the judges decision. If the decision is overturned, then it is possible the state would retry the case. But with all the mistakes that were made, both intentional and unintentional, the state winning an appeal would be a massive uphill climb.

 

In case the story was only shown in local NM news markets, the special prosecutor, Kari Morrissey, admitted during a news interview that she did not send out an official report to all the parties that were supposed to receive it, because "she forgot". One of MANY mistakes.

 

If you watch her body language and listen to her replies when questioned on something, she appears to have a notable level of arrogance, making me think that she believes she is much smarter, and better at her job, than she really is. This is such a shame, and an embarrassment. Baldwin would likely have been found guilty if the investigators and prosecution had done their job correctly.

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

1 hour ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

  Just like the range officer who fails to enforce a DQ for sweeping someone.

 

 

 

 

Happens more often then many think. One was even given a re-shoot after a called sweep of breaking the 170. As was stated by one of the officials, to wait till after the stage to inform the TO that the 170 was broken and an inquiry will then be held. But not to stop a shooter when they break the 170 during a stage.

[Texas Jack Black]

49 minutes ago, Marshal Dan Troop 70448 said:

Happens more often then many think. One was even given a re-shoot after a called sweep of breaking the 170. As was stated by one of the officials, to wait till after the stage to inform the TO that the 170 was broken and an inquiry will then be held. But not to stop a shooter when they break the 170 during a stage.

 And we wonder why SASS has problems 

[El Chapo]

On 7/12/2024 at 5:21 PM, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I think it’s a bullcrap decision. It’s a technicality in my non lawyer opinion, Baldwin still killed someone and he’s going to walk. What a shame! 

 

Americans constitutional rights are not a "technicality."  A Brady violation is serious and inexcusable. 

On 7/12/2024 at 7:35 PM, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Well, negligent homicide.   As I said,  I don't like the decision,  and for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But I would rather have him walk than have a judge say that the State and its agents don't have to play by the rules.

 

A "negligent" homicide is not a crime in New Mexico.

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 hour ago, El Chapo said:

 

Americans constitutional rights are not a "technicality."  A Brady violation is serious and inexcusable. 

 

A "negligent" homicide is not a crime in New Mexico.

The technicality I was referring to was that the prosecution with held evidence from the defense, only it wasn’t evidence as far as I know. I believe it was new ammo purchased to compare it to blanks. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I understood it to be. Seems silly to me. 

[El Chapo]

1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

The technicality I was referring to was that the prosecution with held evidence from the defense, only it wasn’t evidence as far as I know. I believe it was new ammo purchased to compare it to blanks. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I understood it to be. Seems silly to me. 

 

It isn't up to the State to decide what value a piece of evidence has.  AFTER a full disclosure and a complete defense investigation, the defense could very well have concluded that the evidence didn't matter.  The government unilaterally withholding it from the defense so that they didn't even get the constitutionally-required opportunity to investigate it is a violation of Baldwin's due process rights and absolutely inexcusable.  The case law on which that is based is Supreme Court, nationwide, has been the law for your whole life, and every prosecutor is trained on it.  Calling it a "technicality" doesn't change the constitution.

 

FWIW: I can't believe they were that stupid.  What occurred in that case is so incredibly dumb that it boggles the mind.  It is every prosecutor's nightmare for a case under their control to have even the accusation of a Brady issue.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

O. J. walked away, too.

 

What more can I say?

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

On 7/13/2024 at 9:52 AM, Texas Jack Black said:

What I find very troubling is that most on this site pre judged him

Without really knowing all the evidence.What does that say about you.?

 

Best Wishes

 

Yes, your probable right. We pre-judged an innocent man. One that picked up a gun and didn't go through the basics of firearm dafety that all guns are and should be treated as loaded. He pointed it a person, cocked it, then from somewere, someone, not him, pulled the trigger of the gun he was holding and killed a person. Afterwards his only thought was his career maybe ruined and had tears not for the victim he shot, but rather tears of joy that he got off with it and his career can continue and he can be his vile self again.  Yup, we prejudged him that he wouldn't face jail time nor pay for his killing. 

What it says about me is again, 2 tiers of justice. 

Wonder how many will hype to see the movie "Rust" now, since it is a western and not many westerns made.

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

If the prosecution intentionally hid evidence, filed under a different court case number to hide it, the case should be thrown out. But he can not claim that he was found innocent of pointing the gun and pulling the trigger. They weren't allowed to introduce evidence of him being a producer on the movie. But he was much more involved then being merely a hired actor. He was in control of a lot of what happened when they filmed.

[El Chapo]

32 minutes ago, Smokin Gator SASS #29736 said:

If the prosecution intentionally hid evidence, filed under a different court case number to hide it, the case should be thrown out. But he can not claim that he was found innocent of pointing the gun and pulling the trigger. They weren't allowed to introduce evidence of him being a producer on the movie. But he was much more involved then being merely a hired actor. He was in control of a lot of what happened when they filmed.

 

All merits that could have been fleshed out by a jury if the government had done the minimum.  Unfortunately for all of us who wanted to see this to the end, they didn't.  The judge's scathing language in the order dismissing should clue people in to how serious that is.

 

Other point: nobody gets "found innocent."  A finding of "not guilty" simply means the government failed in its burden of proof, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  An acquittal is not a finding of innocence, but rather, a reflection of the jury's view that the government didn't have enough evidence to convince them.

[John Kloehr]

6 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

O. J. walked away, too.

 

What more can I say?

During initial evidence collection, investigators took a picture of OJ's bathroom. There was a box from a Swiss Army knife sitting on the edge of the tub, The size of the box was consistent with a box for a knife with a serrated blade; the blade would be consistent with the wounds. The box was not there after OJ's lawyer was allowed access to get clothing and personal items.

 

Second, the glove that did not fit... There was footage of OJ MC'ing a game from the sidelines in some cold place wearing gloves (for the cold) which were just too damn small for him; they looked like "the" gloves.

 

Calling out prosecutorial error ensures justice to the extent we do the best possible to never convict an innocent person. We are not perfect on achieving this, but can easily find cases where a criminal gets off because of it. OJ walked. Now Alec gets to walk. This is the price of not convicting more innocent people.

 

The failures to do it right suck. Either way. Convicting the innocent is still worse than letting someone evade appropriate punishment.

[El Chapo]

This isn't a source I'd normally read but I thought I'd share this with you all because the author clearly gets how serious of an issue this is/was:

 

https://abovethelaw.com/2024/07/alec-baldwin-trial-ends-on-technicality-also-known-as-basic-constitutional-rights/

 

Quote

But defense attorneys were quick to note that as egregious as this case may seem, Brady violations happen all the time and courts routinely play games with “materiality” or, after the fact, “harmless error,” to bulldoze past the constitutional deficiencies. The warning offered by more than one attorney on social media was to imagine how often these abuses happen in cases without Hollywood media attention.

 

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

I 100% understand why the case was dismissed.  What I don't understand is why the evidently sinister cabal of investigators and prosecutors "buried" those cartridges in the first place.  Alec Baldwin was accused of manslaughter because he pointed a firearm he knew to be real at another person, cocked it and pulled the trigger.  What could possibly have been included in that bag of cartridges that could have been exculpatory evidence in his case?  

[El Chapo]

2 hours ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

I 100% understand why the case was dismissed.  What I don't understand is why the evidently sinister cabal of investigators and prosecutors "buried" those cartridges in the first place.  Alec Baldwin was accused of manslaughter because he pointed a firearm he knew to be real at another person, cocked it and pulled the trigger.  What could possibly have been included in that bag of cartridges that could have been exculpatory evidence in his case?  

 

The explanation for how a live cartridge ended up on the set goes to his recklessness.  Mens rea is required to prove any serious crime, especially a felony one.   A crime is an act + a guilty mental state; both must be investigated and proven.  How and why he might have known there was a possibility live rounds were making it onto the set is something any competent defense attorney would want to investigate and answer.  Suppressing evidence of a witness and physical objects that could allow them to investigate that is an obvious violation of their discovery obligation.

 

Questions I have: who loaded the Starline brass?  Starline doesn't sell ammo to my knowledge.  Is the person who loaded them associated with the armorer?  How about Baldwin? 

 

Whose DNA is on the brass?

 

Who is the person who delivered them to the police?  How did that person obtain possession of those cartridges and what were the circumstances?

 

All are important questions even I want to know as a citizen of this state, and I'm not in the position of defending the accused.

[Trailrider #896]

The dismissal of the case, and the legal culpability of Baldwin or others is NOT within my area of expertise, nor am I defending anyone in the case. My experience as an aerospace engineer dealt, at one assignment in Failure Modes and Affects Analysis. Baldwin kept claiming that he "did not pull the trigger". But what does that mean? If, by "pulling the trigger" one refers to placing one's trigger finger completely within the guard, then he may NOT have done so.  However, depending on how one holds a single-action revolver when cocking the hammer, there is a tendency to curl the trigger finger slightly inward to where it might contact the trigger! (Most of us more careful, would keep the trigger finger stiffly straight, outside the guard.) I have run some tests on an Italian-made "conversion" sixgun, and it does NOT TAKE MUCH for the skin of the finger to contact the trigger sufficiently to cause it to disengage the sear!  A righthanded person MIGHT have more contact if there is a callus on the first joint of the finger. (I don't have one particularly thick, BTW.)  Just saying!

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

2 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

Baldwin kept claiming that he "did not pull the trigger". But what does that mean? If, by "pulling the trigger" one refers to placing one's trigger finger completely within the guard, then he may NOT have done so.  However, depending on how one holds a single-action revolver when cocking the hammer, there is a tendency to curl the trigger finger slightly inward to where it might contact the trigger! (Most of us more careful, would keep the trigger finger stiffly straight, outside the guard.) I have run some tests on an Italian-made "conversion" sixgun, and it does NOT TAKE MUCH for the skin of the finger to contact the trigger sufficiently to cause it to disengage the sear!

I, personally, don't buy any of that for one second.  Did you watch the FBI firearms analysis technician's testimony during the Hannah Reed trial?  There's no way on earth that happened with the revolver in this case.  Zero.  Baldwin may well have convinced himself he didn't pull that trigger, that don't make it true.  

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

3 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

The explanation for how a live cartridge ended up on the set goes to his recklessness.  Mens rea is required to prove any serious crime, especially a felony one.   A crime is an act + a guilty mental state; both must be investigated and proven.  How and why he might have known there was a possibility live rounds were making it onto the set is something any competent defense attorney would want to investigate and answer.  Suppressing evidence of a witness and physical objects that could allow them to investigate that is an obvious violation of their discovery obligation.

 

Questions I have: who loaded the Starline brass?  Starline doesn't sell ammo to my knowledge.  Is the person who loaded them associated with the armorer?  How about Baldwin? 

 

Whose DNA is on the brass?

 

Who is the person who delivered them to the police?  How did that person obtain possession of those cartridges and what were the circumstances?

 

All are important questions even I want to know as a citizen of this state, and I'm not in the position of defending the accused.

Since I'm a simple old soldier (with a useless 39 year old Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice) I had to look that one up because it really didn't square with my understanding of the key difference between manslaughter and murder.  In  response to asking good old Google whether "involuntary manslaughter requires mens rea" what looks like a solid source comes back with "Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the agent has no intention (mens rea) of committing murder but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. 

 

See:  https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/involuntary-manslaughter/

 

So, I still don't understand what those blank or dummy or live cartridges had to do with whether or not Baldwin pointing that sixgun straight at a woman standing a few feet in front of him, cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger being manslaughter.