Ah ok. I am talking about this situation. It is how forums workIt's a similar situation, if you Google it you'll get all the details and then see if your same reasoning applies.
Ah ok. I am talking about this situation. It is how forums workIt's a similar situation, if you Google it you'll get all the details and then see if your same reasoning applies.
Yes, I agree but from the Judges statement I inferred that there was a weakness in their case which added to her pique.I'm not sure you can conclude the case was weak or that he shouldn't have been charged, the mistrial is the result of a disclosure issue re: some ammunition being handed in. But that doesn't imply the case itself was otherwise weak rather they've had to forfeit it regardless of how strong (or weak) it was because they broke disclosure rules (which was in large part the fault of law enforcement too).
Ah so evading the question which has a direct parallel to this case but yet you answer the question concerning Mary Freemantle which is only loosely related!Ah ok. I am talking about this situation. It is how forums work
That's already been explained multiple times.Whether it was live or blank, why was he pointing and shooting at someone? They weren't filming a scene.
No.Absolute ignorance on gun safety is required for production? :S What?
![]()
![]()
![]()
it is basic workplace safety.
Pretty sure he was only supposed to be drawing the gun in a 'blocking' cameras were not rolling hence no footage, irrespective of that he had it cocked and pulled the trigger, it goes against basic gun safety rules on a range, let alone a movie set with suposide blanks.
The issue was that the prosecution appeared to conspire to conceal evidence (the motive of which is not clear maybe they didnt want the source of the live rounds muddying the water). I still think he was guilty of gross negligence and will be sued into oblivion anyway.
I think there is already talk of the civil settlement between him and the deceased estates likely being reopened due to no compliance with the terms of the agreement.
How do guns go off in the majority of instances ?Do you know for an absolute fact that he pulled the trigger? Because he said he didn't!
So unless you have irrefutable evidence to the contrary then your whole point is based on quick sand.
How do guns go off in the majority of instances ?
That is some defense in a murder trial lol.Ready to answer the question about Michael Massee and Brandon Lee yet?
Better question. Did Baldwin definitely, categorically, 100% pull the trigger - when he stated that he didn't?
That is you evading answering yet another question because the truthful answer pokes a whole in whatever specious point you have.That is some defense in a murder trial lol.
Why you so salty? People can have different opinions you know.That is you evading answering yet another question because the truthful answer pokes a whole in whatever specious point you have.
I would ask you exactly the same thing - but as you haven't answered the two other questions I've asked you on this topic I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.Why you so salty? People can have different opinions you know.
No because she performed reasonable due diligence.I would ask you exactly the same thing - but as you haven't answered the two other questions I've asked you on this topic I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.
But if you wish to carry on the discussion rather than resort to ad hominen jibes, then you can answer this question? Do you also say that Michael Massee that was holding the gun that killed Brandon Lee should also have been charged?
Who is she? Michael Massee is a man.No because she performed reasonable due diligence.
Ready to answer the question about Michael Massee and Brandon Lee yet?
Better question. Did Baldwin definitely, categorically, 100% pull the trigger - when he stated that he didn't?
Yes, that's what I would have guessed they would have attempted to prove but as it seems that from the Judges ruling they willfully withheld evidence, I would surmise their case was not water tight enough for them to be wholly convinced of its merits.I believe that's what the prosecution believed and that's what they were going to present in court after testing with the weapon, calling expert witnesses etc.
Sadly we won't get to see that argument tested now (save for maybe in a civil case if not settled in advance) thanks to the disclosure issues.
I suspect with the previous thing where the prosecution basically damaged the gun so that it was no longer possible for the defence to have it examined in the condition it was in at the time of the accident* may have played a part in this, as the first time round the judge may have been willing to accept the prosecution's statement that it was not intentional to deny the defence access to what would have been a key part of their case as it was necessary to test it, but when the prosecution are then found to have very deliberately withheld key evidence from the defence it starts to look like a definite pattern.Yes, that's what I would have guessed they would have attempted to prove but as it seems that from the Judges ruling they willfully withheld evidence, I would surmise their case was not water tight enough for them to be wholly convinced of its merits.
So much so that Baldwin is threatening to sue, maybe for malicious prosecution.
How can a prosecution be so conveniently awful when it concerns a famous, rich person from Hollywood?
Hmm...