Judge dismisses charges against Alec Baldwin

[EZEtoGRU]

Judge dismisses Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' case after defense claims evidence was withheld

WWW.YAHOO.COM

---

In a stunning turn of events, a New Mexico judge dismissed Alec Baldwin's "Rust" case Friday, on day three of his manslaughter trial. The judge granted the defense's motion...

 

[viewing ownly]

There clearly was something incredibly sinister going on, learning that there was at least one live round found in a different cast member's gun that went unused. I don't know if the person who is currently in prison for being in charge of the weapons was going to have to testify or not. This incident would make for an interesting television crime drama episode if they haven't made one already. 

[soloyo215]

This whole thing is unfortunate.

[+ augustus]

I am outraged!  Always treat a weapon as loaded. Never point it at someone unless you are sure it is unloaded. He was the last person to handle the gun. It was his obligation to do so safely.   He was responsible for the set, he chose to use a real gun instead of a prop, he chose to not have a competent armorer on the set, and he pointed a real gun at another human.  This case should have gone to the jury.  Disgraceful.  

Edited July 13 by augustus

[+ augustus]

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is convicted, the person who pulled the trigger goes free.

[+ augustus]

Mr. Baldwin has used real guns as props in films for decades. It stretches belief that he never took a basic gun safety course. The first rule of every such course is to never assume the deadly weapon you are picking up is safe. Every time you pick up a deadly weapon you verify for yourself that it is safe.  The fix was in.  

[BuffaloKyle]

1 hour ago, augustus said:

I am outraged!  Always treat a weapon as loaded. Never point it at someone unless you are sure it is unloaded.

I'm not an expert on the case or will pretend to be but I do know I read the person who handed it to him said it was a cold gun, not loaded. I can't honestly be that hard on him for what happened. It was a horrible accident. I'm sure there will be a civil lawsuit against him still.

Edited July 13 by BuffaloKyle

[+ APPLE1]

As I understand, the case dismissal hinges on a finding of withholding evidence by the prosecution. While it may have been a different outcome if the charge was murder vs manslaughter, I think judges have a duty to make sure the consequences for withholding evidence are significant vs a slap on the wrist.

If we allow evidence to be withheld with minor consequences, or no consequences, it unravels the whole foundation of the American criminal justice system.

[BuffaloKyle]

5 minutes ago, APPLE1 said:

As I understand, the case dismissal hinges on a finding of withholding evidence by the prosecution.

Yes, the case didn't get dismissed because he was innocent. It was dismissed on a technicality. Which happens. Bill Cosby for instance is guilty as hell but had his conviction overturned on a technicality.

[mike carey]

It's a fairly major technicality. Clearly the victim has been denied justice but prosecutorial malpractice is also a serious issue. The judge had discretion but I heard a former federal prosecutor this morning say that despite what he called the appalling result for the victim's family the decision was a perfectly reasonable one, such was the likely effect of the withheld evidence on the safety of any conviction. Either way the judgment is open to appeal. That the evidence withheld, that there was a possible alternative source of the live ammunition used, other than boxes of ammunition the armourer provided, also draws into question the safety of the her earlier conviction.

[EZEtoGRU]

TBH, I didn't follow the trial closely.  I was aware that the death had occurred on the set of a Baldwin movie and that an amorer was part of the crew.  In my mind, the fault here lies largely with the armorer.  Her responsibility presumably is to ensure any gun scenes look realistic and that they are conducted safely.  Most importantly, she should be sure no live ammunition is on the set.  If she had done her job correctly, whether or not the gun trigger was pulled would be irrelevant.   From the start, it seemed to be a pretty simple case to me that ended up being tainted by political motivations.  Hannah Guttierez was found guilty previously and that is the right outcome in my view. 

I do hope additional safeguards are put into place so that a completely unnecessary death like this can be avoided in the future. 

[pubic_assistance]

I don't even remotely understand people who fault Baldwin.

You're on set with weapons specifically brought in as props, there should be ZERO possibility of them being loaded.

Clearly the fault lies with the person responsible for those wespons, meant to be used as props

[EZEtoGRU]

Hint:  It was  a politically-motivated witch-hunt against Baldwin.  

[+ augustus]

1 hour ago, EZEtoGRU said:

Hint:  It was  a politically-motivated witch-hunt against Baldwin.  

That doesn't even make sense.! He was tried in a blue state and a blue county with a blue Judge and blue prosecutor.  

[+ augustus]

8 hours ago, mike carey said:

Either way the judgment is open to appeal.

Yes, it is and I am praying for a reversal.  He is a privileged ignoramus.

[pubic_assistance]

4 minutes ago, augustus said:

He is a privileged ignoramus.

So ...you are saying that he should go to jail because of his privilege??

I think whomever was in charge of those weapons is guilty. Baldwin is not on trial for being a priveleged ignoramus.

[+ augustus]

Just now, pubic_assistance said:

So ...you are saying that he should go to jail because of his privilege??

I think whomever was in charge of those weapons is guilty. Baldwin is not on trial for being a priveleged ignoramus.

He got off because of privilege.   Brady violations rarely result in a full dismissal of a criminal case.  Aiming a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger, without first checking to see if there is a bullet in the chamber, is quintessential negligence--negligent homicide. 

[+ augustus]

David DePape, an obvious mentally unbalanced person, gets 30 years in prison w/o parole.  More than most killers or rapists.  This jerk Baldwin walks free for killing a woman by utter negligence.   Anyone who has ever taken a gun safety course knows you don't point any gun at another person unless you intend to kill them. He has no defense and the sudden appearance of some live and dummy rounds that may or may not have been on the set should not exonerate him.   The judicial system is a mess.  

[pubic_assistance]

4 minutes ago, augustus said:

He got off because of privilege. 

The law is pretty clear on tampering with evidence. Did O.J. get off on "privelege" or was there clear signs of  evidence tampering ?

[pubic_assistance]

2 minutes ago, augustus said:

He has no defense and the sudden appearance of some live and dummy rounds that may or may not have been on the set should not exonerate him

Well ...the defense is basically that there are some irregularities. You don't jail people because you don't like them. He should be exonerated because these were PROPS. Same way we assumed our toy guns didn't have real bullets in them when we played cowboys and Indians as kid.

[+ augustus]

1 minute ago, pubic_assistance said:

The law is pretty clear on tampering with evidence. Did O.J. get off on "privelege" or was there clear signs of  evidence tampering ?

It wasn't tampering with evidence.   The prosecution should not have made the decision to sideline this ammunition. They should have just presented it and told how they came into possession of it, but there was no tampering.  Brady "violations" are common.  Rarely results in dismissal of all charges.

[pubic_assistance]

3 minutes ago, augustus said:

The prosecution should not have made the decision to sideline this ammunition.

Again: you don't jail people for being entitled blow-hards.

Your distaste for Baldwin is clearly infecting your ability to think justly.

Fortunately the court made the decision and you weren't on the jury.

[+ augustus]

14 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Again: you don't jail people for being entitled blow-hards.

Your distaste for Baldwin is clearly infecting your ability to think justly.

Fortunately the court made the decision and you weren't on the jury.

There have been hundreds of thousands of movie scenes made with guns and no one has gotten killed.  Why?  Because the gun is always checked first before the Director yells action.   There was no competent armorer on duty when this happend, as there should have been.  Baldwin was the producer, and he was responsible for making sure there was. 

[+ augustus]

No matter how you cut it, it was involuntary manslaughter. Bullets or no bullets, a person died when he pointed a gun at her which no one should ever do, unless you want to kill that person. One has to question what this judge was thinking to dismiss with prejudice. One has to wonder whether a non-famous person would get the same result.  Baldwin has used real guns as props in films for decades. It stretches belief that he never took a basic gun safety course. The first rule of every such course is to never assume the deadly weapon you are picking up is safe. Every time you pick up a deadly weapon you verify for yourself that it is safe.

[+ augustus]

The lady that was responsible for the gun on site goes to jail and the Hollywood elitist that pulled the trigger - WALKS! That's what people around here call Justice.