Guns and Shit

This is the polite off topic forum. If you’re looking to talk smack and spew nonsense, keep moving along.

Moderators: mgil, chromoly

Post Reply
hector
Registered User
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Guns and Shit

#1221

Post by hector » Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:21 pm

dw wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:43 pm
hector wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:25 pm
BostonRugger wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:15 am

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/baldwi ... index.html
Many other actors have said they “always check their guns or have someone check it front of them,” New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies told CNN shortly after announcing her intention of charging actor Alec Baldwin and film armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed with involuntary manslaughter.
Good.
Outsourcing a task doesn’t mean you’ve outsourced responsibility.

That said, our legal system caters to the rich. Don’t expect accountability.

I really don't agree with your formulation here. The division of labor can and should apply to taking precautions as well.

If I'm a surgeon and I pick up a scalpel off the tray that my properly licensed apparently sober and sane OR assistant is holding for me and start doing my surgery, it's not my responsibility to make sure the scalpel was sterilized. (At least in criminal law.)

Speaking generally rather than with reference to this case.
To be clear, I’m not a lawyer and I’m not making a legal argument.
As stated before, I think the legal system caters to the rich and otherwise privileged.
Whatever the legal rationale ultimately ends up being, it will probably favor Baldwin. Like the knave of hearts trial, “Sentence first, trial after”, the verdict (innocent) is almost certainly already decided. Now it’s just a question of what nonsense rationale will justify the beloved, rich-person’s probable not-guilty verdict.
On a broader scale, if I had to bet on who would get the not-guilty verdict, I’m choosing the rich and guilty all day over the poor and innocent.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

#1222

Post by mbasic » Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:38 am

Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

Interesting video on how this all came to be, and why short-barrel rifles (SB shotguns) even need a tax stamp in the first place.

The TL;DR, in the 1930's for a moment they floated a bill to ban all weapons that had barrels shorter than 18" ....
"Oops, that would include all pistols". People obvs freaked out. So they hastily made an exception for pistols.



The bonus history-info in this^, is how we got to 18" minimum on shotguns, and 16" min. on rifles: Another gov't fuck-up.

Other outrage: lol at a $200 tax stamp in 1930. Inflation calculator tells me this would be $3500 in today-dollars.

User avatar
SnakePlissken
Registered User
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:22 am
Age: 29

Re: Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

#1223

Post by SnakePlissken » Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:49 am

mbasic wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:38 am Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

Interesting video on how this all came to be, and why short-barrel rifles (SB shotguns) even need a tax stamp in the first place.

The TL;DR, in the 1930's for a moment they floated a bill to ban all weapons that had barrels shorter than 18" ....
"Oops, that would include all pistols". People obvs freaked out. So they hastily made an exception for pistols.



The bonus history-info in this^, is how we got to 18" minimum on shotguns, and 16" min. on rifles: Another gov't fuck-up.
I just watched this video yesterday. It's surprising, but also not surprising how US gun law has made the situation dumb like it is today. I couldn't imagine if pistols also had "Federal fuck me in the ass prison" tax stamp rules today. At least the 200 dollars has been watered down by inflation over the past 90 years, but $200 in 1934 was worth $4,368 in 2022 :shock:

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

#1224

Post by mbasic » Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:08 am

SnakePlissken wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:49 am
mbasic wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:38 am Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

Interesting video on how this all came to be, and why short-barrel rifles (SB shotguns) even need a tax stamp in the first place.

The TL;DR, in the 1930's for a moment they floated a bill to ban all weapons that had barrels shorter than 18" ....
"Oops, that would include all pistols". People obvs freaked out. So they hastily made an exception for pistols.



The bonus history-info in this^, is how we got to 18" minimum on shotguns, and 16" min. on rifles: Another gov't fuck-up.
I just watched this video yesterday. It's surprising, but also not surprising how US gun law has made the situation dumb like it is today. I couldn't imagine if pistols also had "Federal fuck me in the ass prison" tax stamp rules today. At least the 200 dollars has been watered down by inflation over the past 90 years, but $200 in 1934 was worth $4,368 in 2022 :shock:
The whole thing is a joke from many different angles , so none of my logic matters here ....

But I could MAYBE see the rationale that a SBR with a folding stock is MAYBE more of concealable threat than a plain ol'e pistol.
Pound for pound, the SBR is a lot more deadly, has more firepower, etc.
But pistols are almost infinitely more concealable compared to a SBR (AR15).
Small pistol caliber cabines? with folding stocks?

What I would like to see, and what I think makes sense, JUST LET THE SBR/SBS guys have their short barrels, but maybe limit overall length to where they can't have a folding stock (or, a telescoping stock). Folders, in my mind, are kind of unnecessary, and quite frankly lame .... or you could easily do without them. They really are only good for storage, maybe in a smaller bag/backpack/etc.

Seems most guys (who aren't criminals) want a short barrel rifle (or PCC or whatever) so that with a suppressor it doesn't get all weird with a 16" barrel plus 5 more inches of junk out there.... Or say for home-defense or in a sporting-gun-match, maybe easier to clear around obstacles, door frames, etc. This way you've half-ass addressed (made an attempt on the surface) the concealability issue (non-issue really).

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Nothing about the pistol brace thing ???

#1225

Post by 5hout » Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:22 am

mbasic wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:08 am

What I would like to see, and what I think makes sense, JUST LET THE SBR/SBS guys have their short barrels, but maybe limit overall length to where they can't have a folding stock (or, a telescoping stock). Folders, in my mind, are kind of unnecessary, and quite frankly lame .... or you could easily do without them. They really are only good for storage, maybe in a smaller bag/backpack/etc.

Seems most guys (who aren't criminals) want a short barrel rifle (or PCC or whatever) so that with a suppressor it doesn't get all weird with a 16" barrel plus 5 more inches of junk out there.... Or say for home-defense or in a sporting-gun-match, maybe easier to clear around obstacles, door frames, etc. This way you've half-ass addressed (made an attempt on the surface) the concealability issue (non-issue really).
Two disconnected thoughts:

1. I know two people with folding ARs. 1 built the folder to see if he could, and then put it on a truck gun that now sits in a gun safe. The other bought it just because he was building a tricked out AR for fun and figure, ehh why not. What I'd be interested in seeing is anyone else actually using them for some reason, or is this just a joke mod (like that can shooting thing).

2. I've been holding off on a SBR/pistol brace build b/c of unsettled state and federal law. This mostly justified my decision from a "personal annoyance" standpoint. However, you can laterally approach the issue of 16+ inch barrel/Close Quarters issues if you use a long eye relief (or wide red dot style optic) much further forward on the rifle and use it with a telescoping stock at a lower setting*. Per all length measurements still a rifle and not pistol/SBR, but handles much closer to a 14 inch rifle than a 16 inch rifle (if that makes any sense). Of course, I am 5'7, so this is comfortable for me. idk what tall people do. Writing this out makes it clear to me that this is probably solely a function of my size.

*I've experimented with cantilever off the receiver and riser on the grip. I cannot see a difference at 100 yards and under, and since I'm shooting a cheapish red dot and .45ACP (regular, +P or S) that's about the reasonable limit anyway. If you're running a intermediate round this might make a difference to your applied accuracy past 100 yards. To which I say: isn't this a home defense rifle?

User avatar
SnakePlissken
Registered User
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:22 am
Age: 29

Re: Guns and Shit

#1226

Post by SnakePlissken » Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:57 am

@mbasic Folding stocks I think are mainly good for just storage in general. I have a Vietnamese friend I somehow got into guns a long time ago so naturally he got an AK47 as his first gun with a folding stock and we took some cringe videos at a range by ourselves shooting it hip fire VC style. It takes a few seconds to fold the stock out. Goes back to that argument "do you have enough time to rack the slide?" On the flip side, his folding stock makes his AK easy to store. Like @5hout said I considered getting a cheap 8" AR15 back in the day as a truck gun before I lost interest in the idea because I would've needed to get a tax stamp for something I would likely never need or use.

From a practical standpoint for concealment. I think SBRs are pretty much useless considering the concealability of an SBR needs a large trench coat (which was way more in style in the 1930s than it is today). We had a guy in my college that wore a large trench coat to class and everyone thought he was a future school shooter.

A truck gun and suppressors are about the only use I see in an SBR just because it's smaller to store or just keeping it shorter overall. Still don't agree in tax stamps though.

User avatar
aurelius
Grade A Asshole
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
Location: Dallas
Age: 43

Re: Guns and Shit

#1227

Post by aurelius » Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:53 pm

BostonRugger wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:15 amstuff/quote]
This feels like a publicity stunt. I see zero chance of a conviction. At best a hung jury for the prosecution. The cops couldn't tell the difference between the dummy rounds and live ammunition (apparently neither could the armorer). But an actor was supposed to discern the difference on set right before shooting the scene? This is so stupid. I agree with @dw. They just need one jury member to as well.

And other actors grand standing? Say it isn't so. So stupid.

dw
Registered User
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:35 pm

Re: Guns and Shit

#1228

Post by dw » Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:07 pm

aurelius wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:53 pm
BostonRugger wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:15 amstuff/quote]
This feels like a publicity stunt. I see zero chance of a conviction. At best a hung jury for the prosecution. The cops couldn't tell the difference between the dummy rounds and live ammunition (apparently neither could the armorer). But an actor was supposed to discern the difference on set right before shooting the scene? This is so stupid. I agree with @dw. They just need one jury member to as well.

And other actors grand standing? Say it isn't so. So stupid.
I didn't want to say it because it was too much of a shot in the dark (since I basically don't know anything about this case or New Mexico politics), but to me it also sounds like some kind of politically motivated publicity stunt.

User avatar
aurelius
Grade A Asshole
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
Location: Dallas
Age: 43

Re: Guns and Shit

#1229

Post by aurelius » Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:14 pm

dw wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:07 pmI didn't want to say it because it was too much a shot in the dark (since I basically don't know anything about this case or New Mexico politics), but to me it also sounds like some kind of politically motivated publicity stunt.
DA's are elected or appointed. A high profile case goes a long way to launching a DA into a higher political office. There is overcharging here (a 5-year minimum sentence if convicted). I think we see the DA offer a similar deal that the assistant director took (no prison time) and see if Baldwin bites.

For me: someone intentionally mixed dummy rounds with live rounds. There should not even have been live rounds on set. That is the culprit primarily responsible. Now if the DA has information that Baldwin was involved with bringing live rounds onto set, that is a horse of a different color.

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Guns and Shit

#1230

Post by mikeylikey » Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:58 am

aurelius wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:14 pm
dw wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:07 pmI didn't want to say it because it was too much a shot in the dark (since I basically don't know anything about this case or New Mexico politics), but to me it also sounds like some kind of politically motivated publicity stunt.
DA's are elected or appointed. A high profile case goes a long way to launching a DA into a higher political office. There is overcharging here (a 5-year minimum sentence if convicted). I think we see the DA offer a similar deal that the assistant director took (no prison time) and see if Baldwin bites.

For me: someone intentionally mixed dummy rounds with live rounds. There should not even have been live rounds on set. That is the culprit primarily responsible. Now if the DA has information that Baldwin was involved with bringing live rounds onto set, that is a horse of a different color.
There are 4 main rules of gun safety, and they're designed so that you have to break at least two of them at once for anyone to get hurt. Baldwin broke 3 and maybe all 4. That's not in dispute.

Technically, what happened meets the legal definition of involuntary manslaughter, easily. The facts are pretty much agreed upon. Baldwin has several affirmative defenses. Legally the standard for an affirmative defense is clear and convincing evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Any variation of "It's really the armorer's fault" ultimately reduces to "I didn't know the gun was loaded." which doesn't cut mustard for you or I because that's the whole point of the other safety rules.

"Well, i'm an actor, there are *different* safety rules for actors." Okay well maybe. Let's consult those rules: https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_b ... _9_3_0.pdf
Treat all weapons as though they are
loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play
with weapons and never point one at
anyone, including yourself.

Elsewhere in the same document:

Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.
Now you could argue that the Armorer's error was so outrageous that it's not fair to hold AB responsible for his contribution, but that defense is going to be fraught with potential pitfalls because the Armorer and everybody else on set was ultimately Baldwin's employee. Yes I know shell companies and LLC's and all that... there's not really any doubt who was actually the boss here. It doesn't take too many text messages or emails bitching people out for moving to slow, even if not from Baldwin personally. and that argument starts to get weaker and weaker. Because you could make the argument that he knew or should have known that maybe these people weren't completely reliable and therefore not taken on faith that it was safe to point a gun they prepared at someone.

And again, because the facts are not in question (lawful but dangerous act resulting in death) Baldwin has to make an affirmative defense here. So the standard is not reasonable doubt. He has to prove 'clearly and convincingly' that he was acting responsibly in the context of: gun safety in general; industry protocols he would or should have known; and, the specific conditions on the set that day and that week.

We don't know 100% of the evidence or the arguments that will be used here but we have a clue... The AD plead guilty. That tells me that his lawyers, having seen the evidence, believed the case against him was strong enough to advise him to take the deal. He neither loaded the gun nor pointed and fired it. Of the three he was probably the least culpable. So that's food for thought.

There is a case to be made that the charges are correct, or at least worth having a Jury o' Peers decide. Having said all that, I personally think this would have been a good place for prosecutorial discretion, given that putting Alec Baldwin in jail really helps no one.

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Guns and Shit

#1231

Post by 5hout » Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:12 pm

mikeylikey wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:58 am The AD plead guilty. That tells me that his lawyers, having seen the evidence, believed the case against him was strong enough to advise him to take the deal.
I think most of your post is decent and relevant, but I wanted to point out that standard legal advice is generally to take any plea that doesn't involve sex offender registry or jail time. Not his lawyer/not a New Mexico lawyer/not legal advice, but the conversation went something like this:

Lawyer: All trials have enormous risks. We feel you have a strong case here, however going to trial is going to cost 10x to 100x what you've spent so far, and if you lose you'll likely spend time in jail pending an unlikely to be successful appeal. Furthermore the prosecutor is very likely [and in probably explicitly said this in Rule 408ish discussions] to view failure to take the plea now as lack of remorse and denial of responsibility and push for substantial prison time [Hall faced, iirc, up to 6 months] + fines. We strongly encourage you to take this no-jail time deal, spend 6 months on probation and get on with your life as soon as possible with little to no risk.

Client: Yeah, but I don't think I did anything criminally wrong.

Lawyer: It's your money, it's about to become my money, and I'm not facing 6 months of jail, plus victim restitution.

Client: Yeah let's just take the plea and move on.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Guns and Shit

#1232

Post by mbasic » Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:53 am

mikeylikey wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:58 am
aurelius wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:14 pm
dw wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:07 pmI didn't want to say it because it was too much a shot in the dark (since I basically don't know anything about this case or New Mexico politics), but to me it also sounds like some kind of politically motivated publicity stunt.
DA's are elected or appointed. A high profile case goes a long way to launching a DA into a higher political office. There is overcharging here (a 5-year minimum sentence if convicted). I think we see the DA offer a similar deal that the assistant director took (no prison time) and see if Baldwin bites.

For me: someone intentionally mixed dummy rounds with live rounds. There should not even have been live rounds on set. That is the culprit primarily responsible. Now if the DA has information that Baldwin was involved with bringing live rounds onto set, that is a horse of a different color.
There are 4 main rules of gun safety, and they're designed so that you have to break at least two of them at once for anyone to get hurt. Baldwin broke 3 and maybe all 4. That's not in dispute.

Technically, what happened meets the legal definition of involuntary manslaughter, easily. The facts are pretty much agreed upon. Baldwin has several affirmative defenses. Legally the standard for an affirmative defense is clear and convincing evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Any variation of "It's really the armorer's fault" ultimately reduces to "I didn't know the gun was loaded." which doesn't cut mustard for you or I because that's the whole point of the other safety rules.

"Well, i'm an actor, there are *different* safety rules for actors." Okay well maybe. Let's consult those rules: https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_b ... _9_3_0.pdf
Treat all weapons as though they are
loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play
with weapons and never point one at
anyone, including yourself.

Elsewhere in the same document:

Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.
I don't know the exact details, but this was from wiki ....

Apparently, they weren't even in the process of actual filming, and only preparing to.
The SAG protocols as outlined would have prevented this...as they weren't filming, and he obviously pointed a gun at a person at people, and to use the SAG verbage, destroyed them. So it was not necessary to point at a person at this not "on camera" moment. It seems, Baldwin was just sorta fucking around by himself with another going over things, because at this moment, no one was prepared for shooting-of-blanks either, as no one had eye or earing protection on. The gun should have been unloaded of all ammo at this point: dummy rounds, blanks, or otherwise (blanks are dangerous, especially at 2' range). Had he shot an another actor who intentionally was put in front of the muzzle as a part of scripted scene, and just handed a fresh declared cold gun from the Assist.Director, MAYBE there's some rationalized defense here (IMO, still no).

Also being the Baldwin shot the lady in the chest, and the dude in the shoulder, at only 2' away, that doesn't sound like an accidental discharge in the sense of accidental upon un-holstering, as that usually results in a shot straight down, or down and a steep angle. Sounds like he straight up aimed that a gun (doesn't matter if loaded, unloaded, thought it was unloaded, Assist.Director said it was unloaded, or not) right at a person people.

Maybe later he would have shot someone in a moment when actual filming occurred, but maybe not, as we don't know how the scene was going to be set up (maybe none was going to be in front of the gun). BUT, everyone would be on guard at the point, knowing there WAS a gun with blanks ABOUT to be fired (if that's even what was going to occur). Likely no one would be in front of the pointed gun; and perhaps they would've really checked the gun for blanks, etc .... as the shooting was supposed to happen.

If they were shooting blanks, pretty sure in a revolver that's the simple crimped over brass cartridges with no slug which are super-easily identifiable against a live round, especially in a fucking revolver. If this involved a close up scene (gun in your face point blank), to where dummy rounds are used (the nose of the bullets are visible in a few of the holes of closed carousel on a revolver from the front), replica dummy rounds are also easily identifiable, especially in a revolver. The one's I've seen have no primer, and/or are hollow and have a small metal ball in them so they rattle .... IOW a blind person could tell the difference.

Rehearsal and shooting incident
B-camera operator Reid Russell was situated on a camera dolly, looking at a monitor with Hutchins and Souza both nearby. The scene involved Baldwin's character removing a gun from its holster and pointing it toward the camera.[5][3] The trio behind the monitor were two feet from the muzzle of the firearm and none of them were wearing any protective gear like noise-canceling headphones or safety goggles.[5]

While the trio behind the monitor were repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm.[3] He said, "So, I guess I'm gonna take this out, pull it, and go, 'Bang!'"[5] When he removed it from the holster, the gun was fired a single time. Baldwin and Halls have said that Baldwin did not pull the trigger, a claim that was later challenged by an FBI report.[35][36][37] The projectile flew towards the three behind the monitor, striking Hutchins in the chest and Souza in the shoulder.[4][31][38] Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell called 9-1-1 at 1:46 p.m. PT and emergency crews appeared three minutes later.[5] Footage of the incident was not recorded.[27]

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Guns and Shit

#1233

Post by mikeylikey » Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:33 am

Side note, I think the collective news media got together and agreed that only reporters who have never seen a gun in their lives are allowed to write stories about this:

https://www.vox.com/culture/23562397/ru ... ter-charge
Prior to the filming of the scene, Gutierrez-Reed, a props assistant who doubled as the on-set armorer, examined the gun, which was a replica of a .45 Long Colt.
uh, no... 100% real gun, chambered in .45 long colt
She looked inside the barrel, spun the barrel,
wut?
visually confirmed what she believed were dummy bullets — fake bullets containing no live ammunition
none of this is how bullets work
Halls should have summoned Gutierrez-Reed to come back and further examine the bullets inside the gun. Instead, he yelled, “Cold gun!” — “cold” meaning a gun that was not loaded with live ammunition — to warn the crew that a gun was about to be discharged.
wut??
” Baldwin filed his own lawsuit in November 2022 against Gutierrez-Reed and the Rust producers, alleging that they were culpable for handing him a loaded gun to begin with.
And he has a point: If the gun had contained blanks when discharged — if it had actually been a “cold” gun when Halls handed it over to Baldwin — Hutchins would still be alive.
That's not what 'cold' gun means
a report by The Wrap alleged that earlier on the morning of the incident, crew members on the set took prop guns — which aren’t supposed to be used to fire anything but blanks — to use in a game of “plinking,” which involved discharging live ammo in rounds of target practice.
lol I mean yeah that's what plinking is but this is just worded really funny. Just say plinking. Or target practice. They're the same thing.

https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/13/alec-bal ... d-trigger/
the FBI notes in their reports is ... that gun, when working properly, will not release a bullet and primer simultaneously by just fiddling with the hammer alone.
wait it gets better
Their report, per ABC, notes they set the hammer at varying angles and positions to see if they could make it fire without pulling the trigger ... but they say they couldn't. The only thing the hammer COULD do when de-cocked and then directly struck on its own (without pulling the trigger) was detonate the primer.
wait it gets better
That essentially means it could set off the actual gunshot sound itself, without discharging a bullet, according to the FBI -- but that's obviously not what happened in AB's case.

dw
Registered User
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:35 pm

Re: Guns and Shit

#1234

Post by dw » Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:01 am

5hout wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:12 pm
mikeylikey wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:58 am The AD plead guilty. That tells me that his lawyers, having seen the evidence, believed the case against him was strong enough to advise him to take the deal.
I think most of your post is decent and relevant, but I wanted to point out that standard legal advice is generally to take any plea that doesn't involve sex offender registry or jail time. Not his lawyer/not a New Mexico lawyer/not legal advice, but the conversation went something like this:

Lawyer: All trials have enormous risks. We feel you have a strong case here, however going to trial is going to cost 10x to 100x what you've spent so far, and if you lose you'll likely spend time in jail pending an unlikely to be successful appeal. Furthermore the prosecutor is very likely [and in probably explicitly said this in Rule 408ish discussions] to view failure to take the plea now as lack of remorse and denial of responsibility and push for substantial prison time [Hall faced, iirc, up to 6 months] + fines. We strongly encourage you to take this no-jail time deal, spend 6 months on probation and get on with your life as soon as possible with little to no risk.

Client: Yeah, but I don't think I did anything criminally wrong.

Lawyer: It's your money, it's about to become my money, and I'm not facing 6 months of jail, plus victim restitution.

Client: Yeah let's just take the plea and move on.

Yeah...you can also reverse Mikey's reasoning and say that the fact that they offered him a no jail time plea means they don't think they had a serious case against him for negligent homicide.

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Guns and Shit

#1235

Post by 5hout » Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:10 am

TIL If someone that has been drinking for several hours they can text you at 1am "“I need my joint [gun] a n****r rl jus got a fakin [mouth writing checks body can't cash]" and you drive to them, delivering them a gun which they then immediately light up the car (killing 1 and wounding 1) you have mysteriously parked in front of*, you have committed zero crimes [if you play basketball].

*The driver of the car will turn out to be the fakin' person, who just mysteriously pulls up behind you (between friend's car and your car), after you got there and in no way was trapped by friend's car, your car and a 3rd friend's car.

User avatar
aurelius
Grade A Asshole
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
Location: Dallas
Age: 43

Re: Guns and Shit

#1236

Post by aurelius » Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:24 pm

The prosecution of Baldwin is not going well:
--The lead prosecutor is stepping down as she won election to the State representatives and cannot be the prosecutor
--The gun in question was damaged by the State and therefore not likely usable in court as the defense will not have an equal opportunity to exam the firearm. A key evidentiary point.
--the prosecution has made errors like charging Baldwin with crimes whose legislation was not enacted at the date of the incident. Those have been dropped. Under applicable statutes: Baldwin now faces a maximum of 18 months in prison.

My feelings are the same: the lead prosecutor in very conservative county charged Baldwin for political reasons with no intention of going to trial. Scuttlebutt is the case was very thin to begin with and no other prosecutor wants to take over a loser for at best an 18 month sentence. I am betting this gets plead out to a no jail time, nothing misdemeanor.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Guns and Shit

#1237

Post by mbasic » Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:36 am

5hout wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:10 am *The driver of the car will turn out to be the fakin' person, who just mysteriously pulls up behind you (between friend's car and your car), after you got there and in no way was trapped by friend's car, your car and a 3rd friend's car.
Traffic at 1 am can be a real bitch ya know?

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Guns and Shit

#1238

Post by mbasic » Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:45 am

aurelius wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:24 pm The prosecution of Baldwin is not going well:
--The lead prosecutor is stepping down as she won election to the State representatives and cannot be the prosecutor
--The gun in question was damaged by the State and therefore not likely usable in court as the defense will not have an equal opportunity to exam the firearm. A key evidentiary point.
--the prosecution has made errors like charging Baldwin with crimes whose legislation was not enacted at the date of the incident. Those have been dropped. Under applicable statutes: Baldwin now faces a maximum of 18 months in prison.

My feelings are the same: the lead prosecutor in very conservative county charged Baldwin for political reasons with no intention of going to trial. Scuttlebutt is the case was very thin to begin with and no other prosecutor wants to take over a loser for at best an 18 month sentence. I am betting this gets plead out to a no jail time, nothing misdemeanor.
yep, this is a mess

I feel there's plenty of blame to go all around and that will somehow, unjustly, exonerate everyone.

RIP cinematographer-lady

BostonRugger
Edging Lord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:48 pm
Age: 36

Re: Guns and Shit

#1239

Post by BostonRugger » Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:32 am

I bought a Holosun optic for my little Sig pistol. Excited.

Then yesterday my holster cracked where the little belt claw arm meets the body of the holster. Now I'm carrying a Glock 17 that takes up entirely too much space in the front of my pants (it's downright claustrophobic in there rn) until the new one comes. Oh well, I thought, I'll still sight it in. Wait, in the new baby hubbub I hadn't been shooting and forgot to send in my range membership renewal. So I am locked out until my check gets through the mail.

Is God telling me it was wrong to buy from Chayna?

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Guns and Shit

#1240

Post by 5hout » Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:08 pm

BostonRugger wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:32 am
Is God telling me it was wrong to buy from Chayna?
No, I think it's god telling you to move to the Midwest where there will be 20+ ranges/places to shoot within an hour drive.

Post Reply