Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

PPC1052 said:
Being charitable to the plaintiffs' bar, (which I am not often inclined to do) do you really think it takes the same amount of labor to handle a soft tissue injury fender bender lawsuit as it does a catastrophic injury aviation lawsuit?
Click to expand...

All I was saying that if a lawyer works 100 hours on a huge settlement vs the same 100 hours on a small settlement, did they really do any more work to deserve that money?

But by the same token a lawyer will probably half-ass a payout that will only net them $3500, vs $35,000,000
 
Bell206 said:
Another way would be to simply put a cap on tort awards. While the tort process does have its place in my experience, dragging in "big money" defendants with zero direct culpability is more just a money grab especially when the plaintiff attorney casts a wide net with only BS claims.
Click to expand...
I think unintended consequences might come into play here in a counterproductive way. If there’s a fixed upper limit on damage awards, then there’s a hard number that can be assigned as a risk… meaning it can be evaluated as to whether islets cheaper to fix something, for example, or just pay off the damages when you kill someone.

You or I would never make that kind of a call, but it’s been done many times before.
 
DaleB said:
I think unintended consequences might come into play here in a counterproductive way.
Click to expand...
There's been much written and done on Tort Reform especially on caps to non-economic damages. However, the only ones who seem to think it is wrong are plaintiff attorneys in my opinion. The reason GA is so expensive is directly related to those tort costs which shutdown the industry in the 80s. Even with the GARA passed in the 90s, those costs continue to keep any growth from happening in GA. While I fully understand and appreciate the need to compensate those who have been affected by acts of negligence, I do not agree there should be a blank check involved with non-economic damages. Just because one attorney can convince an unknowing jury that Cessna or Bell designed an "unsafe" aircraft 50 years ago, I don't believe they should be able to award $100M to one person just because they have the money. I've been on both sides of this fence and think personal responsibility should be the primary qualifier and not how much is in your wallet when actions like these are taken.
 
According to Critical Theory, "personal responsibility" is an instrument of oppression. I wish I were kidding. And I wish Critical Theory weren't so widely and uncritically accepted. But, here we are.

What I'm saying is, don't expect to get anywhere touting personal responsibility, no matter how reasonable it may be.
 
Half Fast said:
I do a fair amount of pro bono engineering work. So, no.

(Just completed site planning and preliminary design for a school in an impoverished village in Sudan.)
Click to expand...
I do unpaid work too. Money is not the only way that performing a service for others helps oneself.
 
GaryM said:
I see more than one way to interpret that...
Click to expand...
Then let me clarify it: When I do something for someone without expecting anything in return, I feel good about myself. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
 
Good, the guy who handed the gun to Baldwin already pled guilty to something, he took responsibility. The lady armorer, I really don't think she is liable, other than she should have shut the set down when Baldwin refused training on cross draw and had her excluded from the set where the guns were being used. I think a slap on the wrist for that might be in order, if you take a job like she did, you have to be ruthless when being bullied or shutdown for doing the job or face consequence. She should have taken the guns from them and locked them up until they complied with her.

Baldwin did so many things wrong, it should be a guilty finding. If that happens, I don't think he'll go to jail, nor should he IMO, unless it is shown he pointed the gun at her to scare her, then f him. But he should be convicted and fined or community service.
 
The words in the NM involuntary manslaughter act are "without due care and circumspection." The case law on this is a bit in Baldwin's side. It really means conduct that is reckless, wanton, or willful. The case law for example shows the case of a person who inadvertently strayed over the center line in a blind hill and hit oncoming traffic as not being such. If you're really into the minutiae, you can read this law review article: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol20/iss1/4/
 
flyingron said:
The words in the NM involuntary manslaughter act are "without due care and circumspection." The case law on this is a bit in Baldwin's side. It really means conduct that is reckless, wanton, or willful. The case law for example shows the case of a person who inadvertently strayed over the center line in a blind hill and hit oncoming traffic as not being such. If you're really into the minutiae, you can read this law review article: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol20/iss1/4/
Click to expand...
Baldwin was clearly reckless IMO. But we'll see what the jury and courts think.
 
He was certainly reckless after the fact, when he couldn’t keep his mouth shut. His allegation that the gun just fired itself after he pulled the hammer back may come back to haunt him. By “may,” I mean “should.”
 
Here's a criminal lawyer's analysis of the case against Alec Baldwin. (Caution: Some of the language is NSFW.)


Here is an earlier video that mentions, among other things, that the FBI tested the gun and found it to be working properly.

 
Last edited:
OneCharlieTango said:
According to Critical Theory, "personal responsibility" is an instrument of oppression. I wish I were kidding. And I wish Critical Theory weren't so widely and uncritically accepted. But, here we are.

What I'm saying is, don't expect to get anywhere touting personal responsibility, no matter how reasonable it may be.
Click to expand...
Is Critical Theory the same as "Critical Race Theory" I've heard so much about? o_O
 
It’s a theory. Some are proven correct, many are proven incorrect or at least incomplete. But it’s how we move ahead with new ideas.

In the 1600’s, Galileo had a theory that the earth moved around the sun. That didn’t go over well with the church leaders of the day who saw the earth as the center of creation but, as he (supposedly) said when he “denounced” his position on the issues near the end of his life, “eppur si muove”.

Just because people don’t like a theory doesn’t make it wrong. Or right. It’s just a starting point to figure out what questions to ask and learn more.
 
It may seem pedantic, but people often conflate “theory” with “hypothesis” or “guess”, often in an attempt to belittle an established scientific Theory - usually capitalized.

I’ll let ChatGPT explain better than I might:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is supported by extensive evidence and has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation, experimentation, and analysis. Scientific theories are based on empirical data and are used to explain a wide range of phenomena, from the behavior of subatomic particles to the movement of planets.

Scientific theories are not simply guesses or hunches, but rather are rigorously tested explanations that have withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community. They are subject to constant testing and refinement, and can be modified or even replaced if new evidence emerges that contradicts or modifies the original theory.

Examples of scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, and the big bang theory.

When picking something up off the floor and eating it, I’ll sometimes quip, “Hey, Germ Theory is just a theory!”

I have no idea how this relates to Critical Race Theory. I suspect the word “theory” is misused here, but I have a very hard time grasping what that “theory” actually is.
 
CRT is often confused with factual history. They aren't the same thing.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
CRT is often confused with factual history. They aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...
Flatly stating someone is wrong does nothing to further the conversation. It would be helpful if you provided more context and information about why you are lead to a conclusion.

this post is an example. Without the second sentence it also would not have furthered the conversation. It would be just me making an unsupported statement.
 
Salty said:
Flatly stating someone is wrong does nothing to further the conversation. It would be helpful if you provided more context and information about why you are lead to a conclusion.

this post is an example. Without the second sentence it also would not have furthered the conversation. It would be just me making an unsupported statement.
Click to expand...
They statement 2+2 = 10 is wrong, and doesn't need further context. @Palmpilot provided a good link.
Here's another one showing the that people confuse CRT and historical fact:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/educa...ctions-from-critical-race-theory-accusations/
 
Salty said:
Terrible example, but at least you provided one, so that’s an improvement. A concept like critical theory is not as simple enough to say “that’s wrong” and say nothing more.
Click to expand...
No, it reflects what has been happening across the country. Some people have been really stupid about it
Here's an example of people confusing CRT and history

There are many more out there

My statement was sufficient because the poster was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top