Funny how the same people loudly calling for Alec Baldwin’s criminal conviction over a tragic accident have hailed Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero after his cold-blooded murders.
I like both of you and so I gotta ask: Why defend him? Why is it about the fact that he's politically active?
I don't think Baldwin is an awful person or anything but like, you don't face such an indictment off of political heat. You face it because real evidence exists that might convict you.
Someone died.
Why is it impossible that he, as a producer and an actor, isn't just responsible for the negligence that led to someone dying? Cause it seems likely he is.
Like this is the same charge a drunk driver gets when they cause a fatality on the highway. It's tragic all around but it was a tragedy caused by preventable negligence.
I just don't get the sudden political angle. I'm as far from MAGA as it gets, but I'm not losing sleep over Baldwin suffering consequences for negligence if he's indeed found to have been culpable. That's what the trial is for.
The accident that caused that death occurred under circumstances where the weapon was not in the possession of Alec Baldwin in the prelude to the rehearsal.
Reasonable doubt.
If you weren't responsible for loading, maintenance, or process, you shouldn't be held liable for a fuck-up by the staff.
@Npars01@Itty53@Strandjunker
The points that I see as problematic is that Baldwin was a producer on the project, and there were a lot of warnings about a dangerous set and an amateur gun master.
He was indicted on involuntary manslaughter, which is not considered murder and it's explicitly seen as unintentional, let alone premeditative.
I want to be very clear about that. This isn't a murder charge. Neither are most deaths in drunk driving cases. I keep bringing that up because it's very very similar.
Unless the staff was cutting corners, then it's the fault of the management doing that right?
That's the producers.. Baldwin.
I don't care how many people tell me a real gun isn't loaded, I'm gonna make sure myself before playing with it: I'm legally responsible. I'm an adult.
And there was absolutely no excuse here, people noticed the problem before it became a tragedy. They went unheard. That's an easy case for negligence.
For me, there's a comedian, hugely unpopular with the far-right, who has hundreds of staff passing by a table of weapons & not kept under constant watch...too easy for someone to swap out one by a passersby.
As a producer there's too much going on during production to keep every detail under your personal control. You delegate. That means you're not liable for murder.
It would be like incarcerating the CEO of Tylenol for the anonymous mass poisonings a few years back.
See, the very idea that just anyone could swap up a gun would be enough to convict the producers for this. That's negligence. There's laws about how firearms are to be treated on set. So I don't think that's how it worked, but even if it did? Same story.
And frankly I don't particularly think conspiracy theory is a great source of reasonable doubt.. given the set already had camera crew walking out.. over gun safety.
Progressives can fuck up too. We're all human too.
Also, you're suggesting the Grand jury that convened heard that argument - or any argument of reasonable doubt - and still indicted.
So this isn't just a one off person on set you think might have tampered, it's a whole court system of the state of New Mexico that's in on it. Because they had to hear enough evidence to think "yeah you could convict on that", that's the indictment.
Do you see the problem I'm having with this logic? It's really familiar, in a bad way.
I don't know what point you're trying to make with that. This is an indictment. Not a conviction. They're not the same thing. A grand jury found there was sufficient evidence to move forward with the charges in a trial. An indictment.
Why are you bringing up conviction rates at all? Those rates are low for murders too. We should still prosecute murder trials anyway if there's enough evidence to convict.
Baldwin is getting far more leniency by having that grand jury trial at all. Most prosecutors would just move to prosecute, Baldwin though, he's going to make a trial expensive. So they're being really sure they have the evidence to convict it they move forward. That's more than normal people get.
I really hate favoritism as it relates to law and I'm sorry, but you're doing that. If Baldwin were Nugent here you'd be speaking very differently. That's disappointing.
Nah. I get that you're agreeing with me here, I get that I responded to a person positing what they assumed was reasonable doubt as a pretty weak conspiracy theory. But that is a normal human reacting to a tragic event, not Q levels of conspiracy and all that baggage.
There's a lot of cognitive defense mechanics that the Q team uses effectively and intentionally. But those mechanics exist apart from them. Everyone does them if they're not careful.
Just consider how many sets firearms exist on. Now consider how often this happens. It's wildly rare for a very obvious reason: regulations and control.
For even one misfire to occur means multiple people fucked up.
What really irks me is Baldwin is about to spend exponentially more money in his defense than he would have with just hiring qualified people and adhering to industry regulation. They were his hires. His cut corners.
@Strandjunker I have do ask you, do you recall any of these people making a claim to decency or principles. The burden falls on stronger people, the weak cling to corrupt advantage. decency has a price, the truly decent know they pay double, their toll and the void left by the other half. Trust if decency was free, they seize on it for themselves.
Add comment