I was once so hooked up, after hammering down on corner exit the rear end ripped the whole top link mount out of the chassis. Had the tires been harder or I had less horsepower, I wouldn't have had to run the backup car. And Dad wouldn't have had to take the primary to the shop to fix it that night as we went straight from Wisconsin on Friday night to Kentucky Saturday.Sounds good to me.!! I mean once during a race at a small 1/4 mile dirt track in Killeen, TX I intentionally spun the car to the infield to avoid a wreck. The right rear tire peeled off the rim allowing the rim to dig into the dirt, rolling the car one full roll. If that tire had not let go I would have been fine. So yeah, that tire caused me to wreck...
I think it was in spite of his lawyers. It’s always suspicious when prosecutors make such a bonehead “mistake”.Case dismissed. That's what several million bucks worth of lawyers gets you.
Case dismissed. That's what several million bucks worth of lawyers gets you.
I haven't been to that theater in a very long time.“Justice for money how much more can I pay
We all know it's the American Way”
“Justice for money how much more can I pay
We all know it's the American Way”
The judge mentions several times that jeopardy has already attached to the trial, and says that a mistrial was not possible because there was no 'manifest necessity'. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I assume that the prosecution doesn't get to have multiple bites at the apple because then they could keep trying this ****, and then if they get caught go "Whoops! Guess we'd better try again!"IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
I too, am not a lawyer, but I believe that it's because of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy, i.e., "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." A lot of former prosecutors have been on TV lately, and from them I have learned that jeopardy "attaches" as soon as a jury is sworn in. That's why starting over again in a new trial is not an option.IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
Not a lawyer, either, but I don't really think this is a double jeopardy situation. The jury being sworn in is either here nor there. If the trial ends in a hung jury or the judge declares a mistrial, the original jurors are dismissed and the case is re-tried in front of a brand-new jury. No double jeopardy until a jury finds him or her guilty or not guilty.I too, am not a lawyer, but I believe that it's because of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy, i.e., "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." A lot of former prosecutors have been on TV lately, and from them I have learned that jeopardy "attaches" as soon as a jury is sworn in. That's why starting over again in a new trial is not an option.
I believe that they were settled pretty much immediately, to prevent a crazy jury award.The civil suits haven’t started yet, have they?
If the mistakes made were inadvertent, a dismissal without prejudice could have resulted in a new trial. The judge, however, ruled that the mistakes made were so egregious as to indicate an intentional violation of the rules of evidence sharing by the prosecution such that the remedy had to include punishment and the punishment was a dismissal with prejudice. I was not impressed with the evidence technician's testimony on the execution of the search warrant which, among other things, required her to collect any surveillance footage of the premises which she neglected to do. Additionally, she didn't bother to check every box of ammunition as if she had more important things to do which precluded her from doing her job. Taken together as a whole, the state did a **** poor job of investigation and intentionally hid evidence. The idiotic thing is the evidence that was hidden probably wouldn't have mattered or help the defense if it had been disclosed.IANAL, so maybe one of the legal folk can explain. I understand the dismissal, but I don't understand why it was dismissed with prejudice, precluding a new trial.
Everyone is so excited that the rich actor got off on a technicality, but the victim is still dead.
Taken together as a whole, the state did a **** poor job of investigation and intentionally hid evidence. The idiotic thing is the evidence that was hidden probably wouldn't have mattered or help the defense if it had been disclosed.
"Everyone"???Everyone is so excited that the rich actor got off on a technicality, but the victim is still dead.
The original special prosecutor (a state legislator) sent an email to a friend speculating that conflicting Baldwin would improve her chances for re-election. She claimed to have been joking.I will be the voice of dissent (again), but what if the actor that pulled the trigger was dirt-poor Joe Unknown? Let's assume Alec Baldwin was only the producer, and another guy was handed a "cold gun" that should've been checked by the armorer? Would this level of attention and desire to have the man hang be present in that case? I suspect that wouldn't be the case.
There's no question that Baldwin and his production company are civilly liable for the death. The armorer's failure to keep live rounds out of the weapon, IMHO, does touch on criminal negligence. Otherwise, it does sound like the prosecutor's office was looking for publicity more than justice.Does Baldwin bear some level of fault as the producer? Despite the court's findings, I say he does. They had accidental discharges (of blanks, I think) on the set in the preceding days. Doesn't seem like there was any safety stand-down and tightening of safety processes. That's on him in my book. Was that not done because live rounds were not supposed to be on the set, so the perceived safety risk was lower?
That is pretty well established. They were framing a shot, eg positioning everyone and working out their actions relative to the camera prior to filming (or recording, I suppose).I was looking forward to the trial to hear the actual conditions where the shot was fired. Rehearsal for a scene, or just playing around?
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread already, but obviously that is not a rule for actors when following instruction. Not saying Baldwin acted appropriately in this instance, but that rule that I was also taught is not applicable to everyone.The second is to never point a gun at anyone and anything you are not willing to kill or destroy
Regardless of the legalities involved, he was guilty of violating two rules with regard to safe handling of firearms that I learned as a youngster (decades ago). The first is that there is no such thing as an empty gun. The second is to never point a gun at anyone and anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. He may have skated from a legal point of view, but he is still guilty of mishandling a firearm and as a result an innocent person is dead.
anyone ever hear of remote camera heads?