What's new

Alec Baldwin Shot a Lady

How would the SAG-AFTRA bulletin specifically prohibiting pointing a gun at a person affect your side of the case?
1000093450.png


1000093452.png


1000093454.png


1000093456.png

1000093458.png


Aaron Z
It would be introduced as circumstantial evidence that the act itself was dangerous and could cause loss of life. Its the same way a DUI causing death can get elevated to murder. While it's common sense, proving someone knew a certain fact is a logistic challenge. Meaning, you can't download someone's thoughts. After a DUI conviction, the Judge issues a notice telling the person drinking while driving is inherently dangerous. if you do it again and kill someone, you can be charged with murder.

Let's say the guy DUI's again and kills someone. Blammo. Murder, and I'd introduce that transcript to prove he KNEW what he was doing was dangerous and did it anyway with conscious disregard for human life.

Those notices you posted would help demonstrate he knew pointing a gun at someone is dangers (ie proving criminal negligence). And while that helps, it doesn't cinch the case. The biggest issue here will be whether he knowingly pointed a gun at someone without direction, and pulled a trigger without direction.
 
It would be introduced as circumstantial evidence that the act itself was dangerous and could cause loss of life. Its the same way a DUI causing death can get elevated to murder. While it's common sense, proving someone knew a certain fact is a logistic challenge. Meaning, you can't download someone's thoughts. After a DUI conviction, the Judge issues a notice telling the person drinking while driving is inherently dangerous. if you do it again and kill someone, you can be charged with murder.

Let's say the guy DUI's again and kills someone. Blammo. Murder, and I'd introduce that transcript to prove he KNEW what he was doing was dangerous and did it anyway with conscious disregard for human life.

Those notices you posted would help demonstrate he knew pointing a gun at someone is dangers (ie proving criminal negligence). And while that helps, it doesn't cinch the case. The biggest issue here will be whether he knowingly pointed a gun at someone without direction, and pulled a trigger without direction.
If they had a training class at the beginning of the film that he signed as having attended where they covered firearms safety and specifically said not to point it at a person, would that make a difference?


Aaron Z
 
If they had a training class at the beginning of the film that he signed as having attended where they covered firearms safety and specifically said not to point it at a person, would that make a difference?


Aaron Z
Same thing. It would be used to demonstrate criminal negligence, but it after that it doesn't "help" further. This case doesn't seem like the kind where its heavily disputed that pointing a gun (even a "cold gun") at someone and pulling the trigger is dangerous. The contention seems to be whether he was told to do so, and what impact the armorer plays in everything.
 
Same thing. It would be used to demonstrate criminal negligence, but it after that it doesn't "help" further. This case doesn't seem like the kind where its heavily disputed that pointing a gun (even a "cold gun") at someone and pulling the trigger is dangerous. The contention seems to be whether he was told to do so, and what impact the armorer plays in everything.
How about AB also being the director that was responsible for hiring the unqualified armorer?
 
How about AB also being the director that was responsible for hiring the unqualified armorer?
This is the angle that I proposed like 30 pages back.
There were safety complaints.
No action was taken to resolve those issues, then someone got dead
 
How about AB also being the director that was responsible for hiring the unqualified armorer?
That's a job performance issue, not a crime. It could also be a civil damages issue, but not a crime. I'm trying to think of an extreme analogue to see if its possible, like knowingly hiring a habitual alcoholic to drive a school bus or something. But even then to be a crime the state has to prove intent. There are clever arguments all the time, but some things just don't lend themselves to being dealt with by the criminal system.
 
How about AB also being the director that was responsible for hiring the unqualified armorer?
AB was credited as a Producer not Director.



Being a film producer can mean different things to different people. And when a star like Alec Baldwin takes a producer credit on a film, it can signal a variety of levels of involvement in the project itself.

While a film producer performs many tasks through the life of a film — from its inception and development, financing and production, all the way to after its premiere and release — the specific duties that Baldwin may have taken on for the Western drama “Rust” have become a subject of increased scrutiny.

In addition to playing the lead role, Baldwin is also a producer on “Rust,” the movie production that resulted in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when a gun in Baldwin’s hand that was believed to be unloaded went off during a rehearsal.



Leading up to the incident, there had been unrest among the crew, with several union camera people walking off, only to be replaced by nonunion workers. An inexperienced armorer may not have properly handled and checked the fatal weapon prior to the scene, and there had already been incidents with guns in the days prior.

The production of “Rust” was a thicket of numerous production companies and multiple financiers, which isn’t unusual for an independent production of its scale, but it leads to various people sharing the titles of executive producer or producer without much clarity to outside observers regarding just who is responsible for what.

ADVERTISEMENT

From a copy of the day’s call sheet obtained by The Times, the producers on the project besides Baldwin were Matt DelPiano — who is Baldwin’s manager and a former CAA agent — Ryan Smith, Anjul Nigam, Nathan Klingher and Ryan Winterstern. The film also had four executive producers.



March 7, 2024
Sometimes the credit is simply a vanity title to boost an actor’s sense of involvement in a project. Sometimes it is a way to defer upfront fees to a performer in favor of back-end payments. And sometimes an actor is so deeply involved with a project that the credit is a way to make official their added influence along the way.

Distinctions between an executive producer and a producer credit also come into play in determining awards eligibility and who among a producing team potentially gets to take home a statue. Only producers are eligible for Oscar nominations, not executive producers. Meanwhile, in television, executive producer is often the more “hands-on” credit, including for showrunners. All of which can dilute the true meaning of the title.

“This ‘Rust’ situation opens up the whole discussion about what a producer is and who the buck stops with really. Who is responsible for Halyna’s death?” said Mynette Louie, Independent Spirit Award-winning producer of films such as “Swallow” and “I Carry You With Me.” “When you have a bunch of executives and managers and actors and people who aren’t really producers in a hands-on way, where you’re seeing to the cast and crew and the safety and the liability of the production, then who does the buck stop with?”

“There generally is not a way to unravel it when you’re sitting outside of that production,” said Travis Knox, associate professor of producing at Chapman University, on who exactly is a lead producer on set. “You just don’t know.”


On a copy of the “Rust” screenplay obtained by The Times, Baldwin shares a story credit with the film’s director, Joel Souza, which does point to a higher level of involvement in the project’s creative development. He also had a producing credit on Souza’s previous film, 2019’s “Crown Vic,” in which Baldwin did not appear as an actor.

A few days before the accident, Baldwin posted a video online expressing support for IATSE members who were threatening to strike in part over issues of on-set safety. Yet as trouble brewed on the set of “Rust” leading up to Hutchins’ death, it is not clear how aware Baldwin was of the dysfunction on the production or what role he might have played in addressing any problems.

“It’s so malleable,” said a producer who has worked with actor-producers in the past and declined to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the subject. “He could just step back and say, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m acting in this,’ even though, in name, he’s a producer. Or he could feel a lot of responsibility. It just all depends on who the actor is.”


Two people on a film set who both have the title of producer may nevertheless perform different functions on the production, from finding and developing the material to hiring the crew. Tom Nunan, continuing lecturer at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television and an executive producer on the Oscar-winning “Crash,” likened the distinction between more creative producing work and that of physical production to the difference between an architect and a contractor working on a building.

“I don’t think on the ground there was any confusion about who’s in charge of what. I believe that, on most sets, it’s very clear,” said Nunan. “Even though in the credits there might be an awful lot of EPs and producers on this, on the ground when something’s being produced, it’s very clear what the hierarchy is.”

The Producers Guild of America has attempted to clarify some of the confusion with the PGA certification mark. When “p.g.a.” appears after someone’s name in a film’s credits, the licensed mark notes that the producer’s work on that film met the requirements of performing the major producing functions on the project. The certification mark does not denote membership in the organization, and it may only be used following a determination by the PGA.



Among Baldwin’s earliest producing credits were an executive producer credit on “State and Main,” David Mamet’s 2000 satire about a movie production that overruns a small New England town. Baldwin was also credited as a producer on “30 Rock,” the long-running NBC sitcom for which he won multiple Emmys for his role as a scheming corporate executive.

Baldwin starred in the 2016 film “Blind,” and, according to Jennifer Gelfer, who was lead producer on the project, Baldwin received an executive producer credit on the film as part of his deal as an actor but served no other producorial role. However, he was still very much a leader on the set, even bringing in his own stunt coordinator for a few scenes when the budget was tight.

“In terms of being careful and making sure everybody was taken care of, Alec, just as an actor, was always caring about that,” said Gelfer.

The dual role of star and producer on “Rust” may have given Baldwin a sense of additional challenges and responsibilities on the set.

“You are always aware of what’s going on all around you,” Nunan said. “Believe me, he was aware of all of the pressures and the stress of the production going on while he was also mastering whatever scene he had to act in on the day. You never, ever are able to shed that hat, even if you wanted to.”

Leading up to the accident that took Hutchins’ life, there were numerous warning signs that “Rust” was a production heading toward disaster. Whether there were producers on set actually capable of handling those issues may be a central question in determining exactly what went wrong and when, and it will surely come into play in the various investigations underway.

“More than anything, it actually is the producer’s job to know what’s going on on your set,” said the producer who asked not to be named, “and if there’s problems, you have to deal with it right away. And it seems like there were these problems, and either these people weren’t experienced enough to know there was a problem or they didn’t care or didn’t have enough money. It just sounds really screwed up.”
 
That's a job performance issue, not a crime. It could also be a civil damages issue, but not a crime. I'm trying to think of an extreme analogue to see if its possible, like knowingly hiring a habitual alcoholic to drive a school bus or something. But even then to be a crime the state has to prove intent. There are clever arguments all the time, but some things just don't lend themselves to being dealt with by the criminal system.
ExWrench CrustyJeep

1000001090.gif
 
I said he could be charged civilly but likely not criminally for it.
- reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, is it? :homer:

Looks like you'll have to keep sucking yourself :flipoff2:
I'm not sure if NM is a joint and several state for civil, but CA is. And if like completely fucked and unfair systems, well do I have a great one for you!

Joint and Several liability, in a nutshell, means if you are at least 1% liable for a harm, you're on the hook for 100% of the damages. This incentives those slimy, greedy pieces of crap lawyers to file lawsuits on everyone and anyone. (Remember the Johnson Valley rollover at backdoor? That's why so many people were named in the lawsuit, even if they had no part in the accident). If Alec Baldwin even put in a good word for the armorer, and the plaintiff knew he had deep pockets (obviously), they'd rope him in too.

It's a disgusting system and I hate it. Proportionate liability is fair, but apparently we don't do that here. Even if the harm occurred in NM, I could see the suit being filed in CA under various jurisdictional strategies. If you wonder why insurance is so expensive, this is why.
 
I said he could be charged civilly but likely not criminally for it.
- reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, is it? :homer:

Looks like you'll have to keep sucking yourself :flipoff2:
My stance was he was criminally liable as the shooter, which you said he would not be.

I think what you and WaterH don't realize is: a legally binding contract was made between the production company and the armorer's company, which put the armorer ultimately responsible for firearm safety on that set.

If this was you & some buddies fucking around in a parking lot, everything you're saying applies.

Butt, this was on a movie set where a person was legally responsible (by contract) for gun safety on that set.

There-fucking-fore: AB can only be held criminally responsible as the producer, not the gun handling actor monkey.
You even stated he would be criminally responsible as the producer which was also refuted in the thread. You all over the fucking place. :flipoff2:
 
Joint and Several liability...
We kinda got screwed by Oklahoma NOT being a Joint and Several state. A neighbor's Rottweiler broke through our fence and a second hog wire fence I had put up 12" inside of the one on the property line. The neighbor's dog bit my dog sitter. She ended up spending a week in the hospital from the infection.

A week later, the dog broke through again while my wife was outside with our dog at 1 am. She permanently solved that specific problem.

We hired a lawyer. $1500 in investigative fees later, the neighbor is judgment-proof. He owns nothing.

The landlord and their insurance are protected, even though we had emailed them about the dogs tearing up the fence. Even though the police had to come out twice to deal with the aggressive dogs. Even though animal control came out and confiscated all 8 rottweilers in the yard.

The lawyer told us she'd be willing to take it to court, but the odds of us getting anything out of the dirtbag neighbor were basically zero. She suggested we just take the refund on the rest of our retainer.
 
We kinda got screwed by Oklahoma NOT being a Joint and Several state. A neighbor's Rottweiler broke through our fence and a second hog wire fence I had put up 12" inside of the one on the property line. The neighbor's dog bit my dog sitter. She ended up spending a week in the hospital from the infection.

A week later, the dog broke through again while my wife was outside with our dog at 1 am. She permanently solved that specific problem.

We hired a lawyer. $1500 in investigative fees later, the neighbor is judgment-proof. He owns nothing.

The landlord and their insurance are protected, even though we had emailed them about the dogs tearing up the fence. Even though the police had to come out twice to deal with the aggressive dogs. Even though animal control came out and confiscated all 8 rottweilers in the yard.

The lawyer told us she'd be willing to take it to court, but the odds of us getting anything out of the dirtbag neighbor were basically zero. She suggested we just take the refund on the rest of our retainer.

That sucks. I would have thought you'd be able to go after the property owner. Also one of the reasons when I had a long-term rental in TX, I required my tenant to maintain renter's insurance. That at least would have had some $$ for liability you could have gone after. Did the sitter come after you or the HO insurance?
 
That sucks. I would have thought you'd be able to go after the property owner. Also one of the reasons when I had a long-term rental in TX, I required my tenant to maintain renter's insurance. That at least would have had some $$ for liability you could have gone after. Did the sitter come after you or the HO insurance?
I paid for her copays. She's a friend.
 
We kinda got screwed by Oklahoma NOT being a Joint and Several state. A neighbor's Rottweiler broke through our fence and a second hog wire fence I had put up 12" inside of the one on the property line. The neighbor's dog bit my dog sitter. She ended up spending a week in the hospital from the infection.

A week later, the dog broke through again while my wife was outside with our dog at 1 am. She permanently solved that specific problem.

We hired a lawyer. $1500 in investigative fees later, the neighbor is judgment-proof. He owns nothing.

The landlord and their insurance are protected, even though we had emailed them about the dogs tearing up the fence. Even though the police had to come out twice to deal with the aggressive dogs. Even though animal control came out and confiscated all 8 rottweilers in the yard.

The lawyer told us she'd be willing to take it to court, but the odds of us getting anything out of the dirtbag neighbor were basically zero. She suggested we just take the refund on the rest of our retainer.

That does suck, indeed. The solution there, in my opinion, is forcing pet owners to have pet insurance. Pit bulls I'm sure would be near uninsurable, as they instinctually cannot resist mauling children to death. (Source: fuck pit bulls, they should all be put down) Back on topic. In your situation, if all renters were forced to have insurance, and this landlord didn't check/enforce to make sure that would happen, there's a strong argument for substantial proportionate liability. But then, the cost to you to have that issue determined likely would be very expensive, as there's no "easy" way to figure that out.

So I can see why J&S has it's upsides. In theory if your state had it, there would be a much bigger incentive to make sure tenants are doing things that would subject the LL to liability. Interesting take, thanks for sharing. My opinion has shifted.
 
I paid for her copays. She's a friend.

Good...and lucky.

I had an incident where my renter (older lady) locked herself out in the back yard while letting her dog out. Tall privacy fence and the gate was locked from the outside so she climbed over it and fucked up her leg and ended up getting a pretty bad clot in her leg. Somehow she kept it all on medicare and didn't come after me or my insurance. Which was nice because I was young and dumb and it was my first house and I didn't have the proper coverage for a renter. :homer:
 
My stance was he was criminally liable as the shooter, which you said he would not be.
. . . and still isn't. I'm missing what you're gloating over. Have you been huffing glue?


You even stated he would be criminally responsible as the producer which was also refuted in the thread. You all over the fucking place. :flipoff2:
I said he couldn't be held criminally responsible as the shooter, but could be as the producer.

You're high on glue :homer:
 
. . . and still isn't. I'm missing what you're gloating over. Have you been huffing glue?



I said he couldn't be held criminally responsible as the shooter, but could be as the producer.

You're high on glue :homer:
I feel a little like I'm taking crazy pills because you obviously didn't read anything Bonanza wrote or look at the case at all. Your saying he can't be charged for being the shooter when that is literally the exact charges he has. Which is what I have been trying to explain this entire time while you rant about him being criminally liable as a producer, when that is not the case as explained by Bonanza. Ill quote it again below so you can actually understand it this time I guess.

1710374456411.png

That's a job performance issue, not a crime. It could also be a civil damages issue, but not a crime. I'm trying to think of an extreme analogue to see if its possible, like knowingly hiring a habitual alcoholic to drive a school bus or something. But even then to be a crime the state has to prove intent. There are clever arguments all the time, but some things just don't lend themselves to being dealt with by the criminal system.
 
I feel a little like I'm taking crazy pills because you obviously didn't read anything Bonanza wrote or look at the case at all. Your saying he can't be charged for being the shooter when that is literally the exact charges he has. Which is what I have been trying to explain this entire time while you rant about him being criminally liable as a producer, when that is not the case as explained by Bonanza. Ill quote it again below so you can actually understand it this time I guess.

1710374456411.png
Jesus Crisco, are you retarded or trolling? :homer:

Here's what you quoted: That's a job performance issue, not a crime. It could also be a civil damages issue, but not a crime.

Based on that, it sounds like AB may be civilly liable but not criminally. Now show me where I missed something, fucktard.

You're high on glue, chief :flipoff2:
 
What you're missing is an understanding of the duties and responsibilities on that movie set.

AB is an irresponsible POS idiot for not checking the gun - but in that situation it's not a crime.
The set armorer is responsible for handing the actor AB a prop, not a weapon.​
AB is ultimately responsible as the producer (armorer's boss) but not as the actor.

I'm not saying what he did as a gun handler was remotely OK; just explaining what the laws are.

Jesus, you dense cocksucker :shaking: - the answers to your questions have been given clearly multiple times in this thread :homer:. Nobody's saying it's right that AB isn't liable as the shooter - but but, butthole - there is no applicable law under which he's criminally liable as the shooter. As the director (armorer's boss), possibly; and civil liability is another matter.

Fuck off with what "you think should happen" unless this is being tried in the court of your head :flipoff2:

Yeah, no shit - if you read back in this thread, you can learn why AB can't be charged as the shooter under that law. As the producer, possibly.

There are roles and authorities / duties and responsibilities on a movie set and, as AB the actor, he was not personally responsible for the non-lethality of that revolver - that responsibility lay with the set armorer. As the producer (armorer's boss), it may be possible to hold him criminally liable for the death.
Butt, this was on a movie set where a person was legally responsible (by contract) for gun safety on that set.

There
-fucking-fore: AB can only be held criminally responsible as the producer, not the gun handling actor monkey.

There is a just a handful of quotes where you state he is/can be criminally responsible as the producer and not as the shooter.
 
There is a just a handful of quotes where you state he can be held criminally responsible as the producer but not as the shooter.
Correcting your slight misstatement of what I typed in your multi-quotes, and yes - that is indeed what I typed.

Now, please type clearly what about that is inaccurate, because I'm obviously missing it.

Otherwise, I'm through with your glue-sniffing bullshit.

EDIT: your image didn't come through on the phone, I see it now on a computer. OK, charged w/ invol. manslaughter. Cool!

EDIT 2: this would've been easier if you could communicate clearly, glue-head :flipoff2:
 
His actual charges are the following INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (NEGLIGENT USE OF A FIREARM), or in the alternative (INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (WITHOUT DUE CAUTION AND CIRCUMSPECTION). The statute is written with both options which is why both are included.

1710377979400.png


On top of that, an actual prosecutor has agreed as the shooter he is criminally liable. Which is why I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I have posted this same screen shot from the New Mexico Court website 3 times now. It couldn't be any clearer that he is criminally liable as the shooter so clear in fact that's the actual crime they indited him for.

Ok, here we go.

At the bottom of the post, is the jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter. I struck out portions that the Judge would likely strike out. I don't know the jury instructions for NM, so this is CA's. Ultimately, invol requires you do an act with criminal negligence that kills someone. While it is going to be helpful for Baldwin to cast blame on the person that already was convicted, his acts are independent. As I gather from the reports, the question for him is whether he was supposed to be aiming a gun at this person, and whether he was supposed to fire a gun at this person.

I don't believe he didn't pull the trigger. The state's experts will be able to get around that without much challenge. I think the biggest issue here will be not to worry about whether or not Baldwin knew the gun had live rounds. Instead, it will be whether he was supposed to point, and fire, a gun at those people. If he was indeed scripted to do so, I can't imagine how on earth he could be held criminally liable for that. If he wasn't, and was joking around or whatever, he should be found guilty-- even if he was told the gun was cold. Firing blanks at someone is inherently dangerous. These aren't toys.

Compare for example, looking down at your radio when you drive a car. Whomp. Hit and kill somone. Did an act that killed someone? Check. Criminal negligence? (Reckless manner that a reasonable person would know can cause GBI/death) Not so much.

Alec Baldwin says the dead girl told him to point (not shoot) the gun at her armpit area. No clue if this is true. But he pulled the trigger, despite his denials.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I looked over this quickly, Baldwin's acts meet the criteria of involuntary manslaughter.

Pointed a gun at someone. Pulled the trigger. That act caused a death. Pointing a gun, even a "cold" gun, at someone is reckless and can cause GBI/death. Didn't intend to kill.

Defense1 -- jury nullification/sympathy despite met elements. He can cast blame on someone else, and all he needs is one juror to sympathize with him to preclude a unanimous sentence, thus a retrial.
Defense 2- didn't pull the trigger. If he can prove this, he didn't do an act that caused a death. Without all elements met, no conviction. if he can convince one juror he didn't pull the trigger, he can prevent a unanimous sentence.
Defense 3- He was directed to point the gun, and fire the gun, at the person. At this point, he can shift blame to the armorer and avoid liability.

His sentence? Should be nothing, or next to nothing. He didn't want to kill her. This seems like an accident. A bad accident, but an accident nonetheless.

_____________________________________________________

NOTE-- 581 is the right instruction when murder isn't charged. I already started editing this and I don't want to re-do it. Invol can be charged on its own, or is a lesser included offense of murder. The elements are the same.

580.Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense (Pen.Code, § 192(b))
When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime
is involuntary manslaughter.

The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter. The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:

1. The defendant committed (a crime/ [or] a lawful act in an unlawful manner);
2. The defendant committed the (crime/ [or] act) with criminal negligence;
AND
3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.
[The People allege that the defendant committed the following crime:<insert misdemeanor/infraction)/noninherently dangerous
(felony/felonies)/inherently dangerous assaultive (felony/felonies)>.Instruction tell you what the People must prove in
order to prove that the defendant committed <insertmisdemeanor/infraction)/ noninherently dangerous (felony/felonies)/inherently dangerous assaultive (felony/felonies)>.]

[The People [also] allege that the defendant committed the following lawful act with criminal negligence: <insert act
alleged>.]Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal
negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;

AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.][There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if
it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is morethan a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only
factor that causes the death.]Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It isan injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.[The People allege that the defendant committed the following (crime/[and] lawful act with criminal negligence): <insert alleged
predicate acts when multiple acts alleged>. You may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree that the People have proved that
the defendant committed at least one of these alleged acts and you all agree that the same act or acts were proved.]
 
Jesus Fucking Christ... :confused: He's been charged, yes. He hasn't been convicted. You understand the difference, right? The armorer has actually been convicted, and she isn't even the one who pulled the damned trigger, because it was her fucking job to make sure nothing bad happened when some retard (AB) started pulling the trigger.

Not reading all your bullshit. The actual issue is actually pretty well understood by a few of us here... You not being one of us.
 
Didn’t see this posted. Hannah’s “boss” who is also fucking retarded. Damn shame she wasn’t prosecuted.

 
Top Back Refresh