Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A quick perusal through the right wing podcasts and Fox news would suggest its the exact opposite. It is infact the pro-gun lobby and the MAGA community who have politicised the death of Halyna Hutchins. Given the Hutchins family have thrown their support behind Baldwin would suggest Trump Jr and his league of deplorables should quit while they are ahead.
I don't recall the democrats politicising guns when Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington.
Jesus, get back to me when you develop your reading comprehension to the point where you can actually follow the conversation, no one is politicizing this particular shooting, we're making fun of Alec Baldwin for being an anti gun moron who killed someone with a gun; politicizing is what people like you do when there's a mass shooting, calling for new laws before anyone even knows the circumstances. I honestly don't know why I waste my time and energy, maybe just reflex at this point.
An accidental shooting that, by all that we know so far, wasn't Baldwin's fault.
If the scene he was rehearsing was a group of people playing "Russian Roulette", do you think that he would he have taken another person's word that it was unloaded, or checked for himself?
If not, why do you think that he should not treat a weapon in the same way for any other rehearsal?
I get the impression that you are trying to shift blame to Baldwin before any of us know the whole story.
Not shifting blame onto him - merely pointing out details that are convenniently ignored by those working to shift blame from him\absolve him of any responsibility for his own personal actions (or lack thereof).
I'm looking at the legal issues\requirements\precedents (based on the New Mexico statutes), not what "feels" right, or "what I want to be true". As I noted earlier in the thread regarding precedence based on a related trial:
Quote:
And, as it happens, there is indeed New Mexico case law precisely on this point.
That case law is a decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court itself, State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). For any of you who may be concerned that Gilliam, a decision handed down in 1955, is “out of date,” be not afraid—case law is perfectly valid law until there is a Constitutional, statutory, or later court decision that modifies or reverses the applied legal standard. Valid case law does not simply “expire”—and I used my office’s professional legal database resource, Lexis, to ensure that Gilliam remains good law in New Mexico.
The decision was an appeal of a criminal conviction at a jury trial, in which the defendant had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter by the act of unsafely handling a gun with the result that it discharged and killed the victim.
The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:
Quote:
It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.
So, it doesn’t matter who loaded the gun—meaning, all this talk about whether the live round in the gun came from this source or that source or some other source is largely irrelevant for purposes of determining whether Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins was involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law.
The important portion (as relates to Mr Baldwin), as determined by the New Mexico Supreme Court is:
Quote:
It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.
Did he have a loaded firearm in his hand (as noted by that court, it makes no difference who loaded it)?
Did he exercise "due caution and circumspection" when handling it?
It is the answers to those questions which determine whether he was legally responsible.
27 Oct 2021, 12:41 am
