Alec Baldwin

[John Kloehr]

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

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.   

The rounds were turned in after the Reed trial.

 

They were logged under some "new" case number, not Reed (thought there was a connection) and not Baldwin (connected through Reed).

 

The problem as I understand it is one of the state's witnesses referenced them or introduced them in testimony during the Baldwin trial, and this was the first time the defense learned about them.

 

They have nothing to do with Baldwin not always treating a firearm as if it is loaded, they have to do with a prosecution failure to disclose during discovery. The defense does not need to prove they are relevant, a showing of not being able to investigate is enough.

 

I am not a lawyer, I am an engineer. I read and interpret all the legal stuff as specifications. The prosecution failed to meet specification. And as an engineer, I prefer Residence Inn over Howard Johnson.

[Eyesa Horg]

He said he let go of the hammer and it went off. IIRC

He very well may have had the trigger pinned, therefore figuring he never pulled it. Either way he still killed someone because he pointed a gun at them.

[El Chapo]

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

Quote

 

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.   

Edited July 17 by El Chapo
I shouldn't be entrusted with the quote tool

[El Chapo]

My response to the above post follows.  I'm sorry i can't seem to run the quote tool today.

 

Involuntary manslaughter is a homicide with a lower mens rea than murder.  Whether his actions were reckless is a factual question that only a jury's opinion matter, and only after they have heard all the evidence.  If you want to know the elements of both murder and manslaughter, I suggest you look at primary source material, not some website.  All of New Mexico law, including its criminal law (chapter 30) and the jury instruction for all criminal offenses (chapter 14 of the New Mexico Rules Annotated) is available on a public website:

 

https://www.nmcompcomm.us/search-laws/

 

All real crimes require both an actus reas and a mens rea.  The mens rea of recklessness (or, more correctly, what New Mexico calls "criminal negligence" although it's equal to what the rest of the common law world calls recklessness, and what that means, can be found within these documents.  All other sources are suspect.

 

There is no areal dispute that Baldwin is factually responsible for her death.  The question of whether he could have been criminally responsible, could only have been answered by a jury, applying the law linked above.

[Choctaw Jack]

My understanding of a murder charge is that the death of another must include or be the result of premeditation, or "malice aforethought".

 

[watab kid]

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

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.   

this was my thinking in this case - i never thought him guilty of anything more but also of nothing less , the technicality he got off on is looking very covenant in this situation , 

i still have some faith in the courts but not as much as i grew up with , 

[Texas Joker]

5 hours ago, watab kid said:

this was my thinking in this case - i never thought him guilty of anything more but also of nothing less , the technicality he got off on is looking very covenant in this situation , 

i still have some faith in the courts but not as much as i grew up with , 

A requirement that the State turn all evidence over to the defense when asked is not a technicality. It's a Civil Right that reins in the ability of a State to just charge you with stuff and say trust us we have proof.

 

This verdict didn't go the way a lot of folks wanted but it should INCREASE your trust in courts: the judge ruled the LAW as written not how they FELT the law should be or what's fair in their opinion.

[El Chapo]

12 hours ago, Choctaw Jack said:

My understanding of a murder charge is that the death of another must include or be the result of premeditation, or "malice aforethought".

 

 

That is not correct.  A second degree murder in New Mexico does not require a showing of premeditation or malice.  Second degree murder in New Mexico requires only that the state prove that the defendant intentionally did an act that results in the death of a human being with the knowledge that the act created a high probability of death or great bodily harm.  It is a "general intent" crime, which is defined by the following jury instruction, Rule 11-141 NMRA, which is mandatory in all general intent crimes:

 

In addition to the other elements of (murder), the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally when he committed the crime. A person acts intentionally when he purposely does an act which the law declares to be a crime.  Whether the defendant acted intentionally may be inferred from all of the surrounding circumstances, such as the manner in which he acts, the means used, and his conduct and any statements made by him.

 

The elements of second degree murder are found in 14-210:

For you to find the defendant guilty of second degree murder the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:

1.   The defendant killed (name of victim);

2.   The defendant knew that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to (name of victim);

3.   This happened in New Mexico on or about the (date alleged).

 

Baldwin was not charged with second degree murder, but it should be obvious from reading these two things that he could have been.  There are three theories of first degree murder, one of which requires proving premeditation, but I think everyone agrees that Baldwin did not intend for her to die, so it's really not relevant to this discussion other than to say that there is no evidence that such a charge would have been appropriate.

 

  

6 hours ago, Texas Joker said:

A requirement that the State turn all evidence over to the defense when asked is not a technicality. It's a Civil Right that reins in the ability of a State to just charge you with stuff and say trust us we have proof.

 

This verdict didn't go the way a lot of folks wanted but it should INCREASE your trust in courts: the judge ruled the LAW as written not how they FELT the law should be or what's fair in their opinion.

 

There was no verdict because the judge took that away from the jury to punish the government for violating Baldwin's basic constitutional rights.

Edited July 17 by El Chapo

[Cypress Sun]

 

It's over folks, Baldwin walked due to incompetence, or possibly worse. Get over it.

 

 

[watab kid]

9 hours ago, Texas Joker said:

A requirement that the State turn all evidence over to the defense when asked is not a technicality. It's a Civil Right that reins in the ability of a State to just charge you with stuff and say trust us we have proof.

 

This verdict didn't go the way a lot of folks wanted but it should INCREASE your trust in courts: the judge ruled the LAW as written not how they FELT the law should be or what's fair in their opinion.

i agree - i thought it was that the box was contested as "had not been on the set"  , not that it was not tuned over in discovery , if that is the case i agree with the judge , 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

We all knew ahead of time where this would end up.

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

8 hours ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

We all knew ahead of time where this would end up.

That much we can all agree on.  

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

PLUS ONE for Cypress Sun.

 

It's dead.  it's no longer news.  LET.   IT.   DIE.