January 20, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, VanHammersly said: Again, the Crow is an analogous situation regardless of it being in NC. And your insistence that the circumstances around the loading/inspection process won’t have any bearing on convincing 12 jurors is laughable and something you obviously didn’t think through. It’s going to be an extremely difficult case to prosecute. Clearly we’re not going to agree here so I’ll stop mansplaining and get back to watching The Knick. Feel free to scream simp a few more times in your next post. The Crow - my god you are such a simp Loading and inspecting the weapon have ZERO bearing on individual responsibility when handling and firing a gun under the umbrella of involuntary manslaughter. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. Again - the state does not care that Alec’s production company used some safety procedure or protocol for firearms when he himself did not use safety protocols. It literally has no bearing on his individual responsibility for handling that gun with respect to their laws. And it doesn’t matter what happened with Brandon Lee and the set of the Crow 30 years ago - you simpleton.
January 20, 20232 yr 8 hours ago, binkybink77 said: The Crow - my god you are such a simp Loading and inspecting the weapon have ZERO bearing on individual responsibility when handling and firing a gun under the umbrella of involuntary manslaughter. He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. Again - the state does not care that Alec’s production company used some safety procedure or protocol for firearms when he himself did not use safety protocols. It literally has no bearing on his individual responsibility for handling that gun with respect to their laws. And it doesn’t matter what happened with Brandon Lee and the set of the Crow 30 years ago - you simpleton. I think you're equating general firearms handling with handling them in a production setting. Also, PC for charges requires proof of a fair probability, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at the NM statutes for involuntary manslaughter, I think the armorer would be the most likely to get convicted, but I don't think Baldwin will be likely to get convicted just on the basis of him handling it as an actor. If they do get him, it'll be through negligence as a producer.
January 20, 20232 yr This is a tough one. Not sure how a jury would rule if the defense can convince them that the circumstances of a movie set are different enough such that Baldwin had a reasonable expectation that the gun was already checked and deemed safe. Would need to look for other cases where actors were found criminally liable for unsafe workplace conditions on set. Not aware how many of those there are, but him also being a producer does complicate things quite a bit. Though not sure if that still would be enough to convict him on a manslaughter charge. Could be one of those borderline situations where he gets off on criminal charges but loses in a civil case.
January 20, 20232 yr 24 minutes ago, Bill said: I think you're equating general firearms handling with handling them in a production setting. Also, PC for charges requires proof of a fair probability, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at the NM statutes for involuntary manslaughter, I think the armorer would be the most likely to get convicted, but I don't think Baldwin will be likely to get convicted just on the basis of him handling it as an actor. If they do get him, it'll be through negligence as a producer. Baldwin’s handling of the firearm could be considered criminally negligent which is the standard in New Mexico for involuntary manslaughter. Pointing the gun at a person and pulling the trigger falls under this handling of the weapon. I don’t disagree that his role as owner of the production company and producer may play a role here as well.. e.g. there are reports that the armorer was instructed to stay outside of the set for Covid reasons. OSHA has already ruled that there were workplace violations in the set - but OSHA isn’t a criminal authority nor do they go after individuals. They specifically charged Baldwin and not other producers on the set because he individually handled the weapon - and again in NM for it to be involuntary manslaughter that includes an element of criminal negligence on his own part. I’ll be curious to see if they found anything in his cell phone to support either his culpability as an actor and or a producer. ETA - I believe the armorer also claims she requested Baldwin take part in additional training for this scene and he refused.. I wonder if that will turn up in his cell phone search.
January 20, 20232 yr Author 56 minutes ago, Bill said: I think you're equating general firearms handling with handling them in a production setting. Also, PC for charges requires proof of a fair probability, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at the NM statutes for involuntary manslaughter, I think the armorer would be the most likely to get convicted, but I don't think Baldwin will be likely to get convicted just on the basis of him handling it as an actor. If they do get him, it'll be through negligence as a producer. Exactly. Now stop being a simp for Hollywood actors.
January 20, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Exactly. Now stop being a simp for Hollywood actors. I like how it was okay for her to call you a simp several times, but then accused you of being a misogynist when you called her emotional once. You clearly crossed a line with that personal attack Van!
January 20, 20232 yr Author 44 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: This is a tough one. Not sure how a jury would rule if the defense can convince them that the circumstances of a movie set are different enough such that Baldwin had a reasonable expectation that the gun was already checked and deemed safe. Would need to look for other cases where actors were found criminally liable for unsafe workplace conditions on set. Not aware how many of those there are, but him also being a producer does complicate things quite a bit. Though not sure if that still would be enough to convict him on a manslaughter charge. Could be one of those borderline situations where he gets off on criminal charges but loses in a civil case. I would think this is the most likely scenario. There's no doubt that civilly he's screwed. Also the producer angle is dependent on his role. A lot of big name actors are producers in name only just to secure the funding but they have little to do with the day to day operations. It just depends on whether he had a hand in real producer work or not.
January 20, 20232 yr Author 7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: I like how it was okay for her to call you a simp several times, but then accused you of being a misogynist when you called her emotional once. You clearly crossed a line with that personal attack Van! I just like how unprovoked it was. We were having a seemingly normal conversation about someone's legal liability and then she just randomly starts screaming simp at me.
January 20, 20232 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: I just like how unprovoked it was. We were having a seemingly normal conversation about someone's legal liability and then she just randomly starts screaming simp at me. But it wasn’t random - you are a simp
January 20, 20232 yr Author Just now, binkybink77 said: But it wasn’t random - you are a simp Do you need to lie down? You seem very emotional.
January 20, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: Do you need to lie down? You seem very emotional. It must be my period.. or maybe I have the vapors
January 20, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: I just like how unprovoked it was. We were having a seemingly normal conversation about someone's legal liability and then she just randomly starts screaming simp at me. Don't forget about her reducing your profession to just being an ass wiper for Hollywood actors. It was all very normal.
January 20, 20232 yr Author 2 minutes ago, binkybink77 said: It must be my period.. or maybe I have the vapors Just as I suspected. You're bleeding from the wherever.
January 20, 20232 yr so are we going with simp in the traditional sense of "crushing" on someone? or going with simp being short for simpleton? just trying to catch up...the last 2 pages were a lot. 😖
January 20, 20232 yr 18 hours ago, The_Omega said: At least he'll get to call his daughter once a day. underrated comment
January 20, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: so are we going with simp in the traditional sense of "crushing" on someone? or going with simp being short for simpleton? just trying to catch up...the last 2 pages were a lot. 😖 The kids changed another word: Simp is an internet slang term describing someone who shows excessive sympathy and attention toward another person, typically someone who does not reciprocate the same feelings, in pursuit of affection or a sexual relationship.
January 20, 20232 yr Just now, Shepard Wong said: The kids changed another word: Simp is an internet slang term describing someone who shows excessive sympathy and attention toward another person, typically someone who does not reciprocate the same feelings, in pursuit of affection or a sexual relationship. that's sort of the "crushing" on someone definition i was referring to.
January 20, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, Shepard Wong said: The kids changed another word: Simp is an internet slang term describing someone who shows excessive sympathy and attention toward another person, typically someone who does not reciprocate the same feelings, in pursuit of affection or a sexual relationship. Confirmed, Van clearly wants to have sex with Alec Baldwin.
January 20, 20232 yr 13 minutes ago, binkybink77 said: It must be my period.. or maybe I have the vapors
January 20, 20232 yr 11 hours ago, VanHammersly said: What the F are you talking about lady? I work in the industry. I’ve been on a lot of sets. I’m just telling you the process, which obviously the courts will take into consideration when they hear the case. When most people (hunters, etc.) handle a firearm they don’t have a team of people loading, checking and re-checking that firearm before they use it. The chain of command speaks to culpability, which means it’s something that the court will absolutely care about.
January 20, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Confirmed, Van clearly wants to have sex with Alec Baldwin. van & alec:
January 20, 20232 yr If Baldwin was being tried for being a gigantic d-head, he'd get the death penalty. As it stands, I'll be shocked if he gets more than like community service or some ish On a side note - Van being a giant fanboy of someone like Alec Baldwin is the least surprising thing I've read in CVON all year.
Create an account or sign in to comment