Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Case dismissed with prejudice: prosecution failed to disclose new potential evidence to the defense (ammo found on set by the armorer's friend to the sheriff? Not clear).

This means that Baldwin cannot be charged again. No pronouncement is made on his guilt or innocence.

[Anonymous]

Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good.

+1

[Anonymous]

Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Case dismissed with prejudice: prosecution failed to disclose new potential evidence to the defense (ammo found on set by the armorer's friend to the sheriff? Not clear).

This means that Baldwin cannot be charged again. No pronouncement is made on his guilt or innocence.

Also: Baldwin had already reached a monetary settlement with the victim's family some time ago, and the armorer is serving a prison sentence for involuntary manslaughter. Her attorney indicated that they would seek a dismissal as well, but it might be harder to do in her case.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain the situation with the bullets, or a link to an explanation. I've read Daily mail and a couple other articles, but I don't understand the significance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

[Anonymous]

The prosecutor claims the new ammo found was not the same as the one used for the fatal shot.

I do not understand how any "new" ammo found would impact the case in any way.

So is this just a technicality because correct procedure was not followed?

[Anonymous]

The prosecutor resigned

[Anonymous]

Good. Now they can stop wasting taxpayer money with their ridiculous vendetta against Baldwin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor claims the new ammo found was not the same as the one used for the fatal shot.

I do not understand how any "new" ammo found would impact the case in any way.

So is this just a technicality because correct procedure was not followed?

It wasn’t new ammo. It was ammo that the prosecution decided was irrelevant and then hid in a different case file, never handing over the evidence to the defense, as they were legally required to do.

[Anonymous]

I have never understood this trial or what the problem is.

It’s a movie set and people use guns, right? Is the claim that Alex shot the woman on purpose?

Seems like participating in a movie using guns has a risk, no? Same for being a gun handler on a set.

I do not want to be shot by a gun and wouldn’t agree to be on a western movie set where guns are being used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never understood this trial or what the problem is.

It’s a movie set and people use guns, right? Is the claim that Alex shot the woman on purpose?

Seems like participating in a movie using guns has a risk, no? Same for being a gun handler on a set.

I do not want to be shot by a gun and wouldn’t agree to be on a western movie set where guns are being used.

No, no one is claiming he did it on purpose, but you can kill someone accidentally and still held criminally responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never understood this trial or what the problem is.

It’s a movie set and people use guns, right? Is the claim that Alex shot the woman on purpose?

Seems like participating in a movie using guns has a risk, no? Same for being a gun handler on a set.

I do not want to be shot by a gun and wouldn’t agree to be on a western movie set where guns are being used.

No, no one is claiming he did it on purpose, but you can kill someone accidentally and still held criminally responsible.

DP, while true, I never understood how they could possibly make a case for manslaughter under these circumstances. The only thing that would even come close was the act hiring an unqualified armorer, but that seemed like a stretch.

[Anonymous]

No reason to point a gun and fire -- when the script doesn't call for it.