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