Originally Posted by HobieMarty (Post 12282811)

So let me get this straight. A person lost their life at the complete negligence of others. A trigger WAS pulled, and a gun was fired, which resulted in the death of someone, and no one is going to be held accountable for this due to, basically, a technicality? Sounds fishy to me.
Where is the justice?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Chocaholic (Post 12282839)

I’d say, this result stinks. We have our new OJ Simpson.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 12282879)

She has a lot of integrity.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 12282882)

Wow, that's shrill. I happen to think that AB is guilty of the charge he faced but to equate a psychopath murderer who stabbed two people hundreds of times within feet of his sleeping children with an accidental death, (even the prosecution does not claim intention on AB's part), is about the most batschit thing on this thread. It's PARF level logic, just pure emo and check your brains at the door. :rolleyes:

The cases have absolutely nothing in common, other than a famous defendant.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 12282882)

First of all, there is no such thing as "a technicality" in criminal trials. It's a term used by people who either don't understand the justice system in the United States or simply don't like the outcome of a ruling. Usually both. Evidence is either allowed or not and rules on evidence are in place for reasons previously decided in a court of law, lawyers on both sides have an obligation to understand and obey these rules. Nothing "technical" about it.







Wow, that's shrill. I happen to think that AB is guilty of the charge he faced but to equate a psychopath murderer who stabbed two people hundreds of times within feet of his sleeping children with an accidental death, (even the prosecution does not claim intention on AB's part), is about the most batschit thing on this thread. It's PARF level logic, just pure emo and check your brains at the door. :rolleyes:



The cases have absolutely nothing in common, other than a famous defendant.

Originally Posted by Chocaholic (Post 12282917)

Two famous defendants who each got away with killing an innocent woman. Nope, no similarity at all.

Originally Posted by Arizona_928 (Post 12283133)

Some people don’t appreciate a good quip.

Originally Posted by Arizona_928 (Post 12283183)

Sure… The world is divided into two classes: those who believe half of what they hear, and those who know better.

Originally Posted by HobieMarty (Post 12283069)

So, you said "first of all" but never followed up with a "second of all." I couldn't care any less about Alec Baldwin and the outcome of the ruling in this case actually because, well, I have a life, unlike the woman he shot!!!

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 12283390)

You wanted a second opinion? Ok...you're a maroon. :)

Originally Posted by creaturecat (Post 12283537)

Baldwin had zero responsibility.
he trusted the armourer - this is standard protocol. period.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins (Post 12283552)

But that's not why the charges were dismissed. If true, and acceptable outside of the movie industry, that would have been established at trial. That was not allowed to happen.

Instead we saw the judge punishing the police and prosecutor for their malfeasance. She could have declared a mistrial, allowing the defense to review the new evidence while scheduling a new trial date. But no, it was more important to her to make a point with the police and prosecutor that they don't get away with this in "her" court. Which is actually our court...

Originally Posted by creaturecat (Post 12283537)

Baldwin had zero responsibility.
he trusted the armourer - this is standard protocol. period.