UncleEd
Member
Yeah, it's a shame the prosecution got caught in an illegal act prompting a "with prejudice" dismissal.
I'm not surprised at all. Our justice system is all about money. Justice has very little to do with it.
Baldwin was already known for being, well forum rules won't let me say it, shall we say difficult? He will no longer be remembered as the actor or star of this movie or that TV show. From now on he'll always be the idiot who's carelessness killed a woman. His career is done. Nobody in Hollywood wants anything to do with him. Even if he does get another role, nobody will go see him and the movie will flop. From what I understand, he had a huge amount of money tied up in "Rust".
Then there's the lawyer fees and I'm sure there will be civil suits. He may well go into bankruptcy. He's likely to spend the rest of his days broke and scorned. For someone like him, that's much worse than prison.
I nave no respect for Baldwin.
I won't ever watch anything he is in.
I have immense respect for the law. But I have seen it circumvented and prostituted in countless ways. Clearly our system of justice is terrible - until one compares it with all the others.
A current, egregious example is the proliferation of Soros-appointed district attorneys. Our system was designed to be adversarial. It can't do so when there are two defense counsels and no prosecutors.
Despite its defects. it is all we have.
Somehow, despite age and experience, I still have ideals. I respect our constitution. I revere our blindfolded lady of justice.
With all its faults it is all we have.
So I reject the accusations posted here, accusations based on emotional speculation without supportive factual documentation, that the fix was in, that 'money changed hands', etc, etc.
I think the judge made the right decision. The prosecution had, in my observation, tainted the case irreversibly. The buck stopped with the prosecution. Defense counsel made their case for dismissal. That is what defense counsel is supposed to do. That is how the adversarial system is supposed to work.
One thing I have been curious about from the start, and now will never know, is whether or not Baldwin would have been convicted by the jury. Using Ca law as a reference, PC #s 192 et seq, since it is familiar to me, I just don't see the prosecution being able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements to convict Baldwin.
I think the blindfolded lady got it right.
And I am keeping my ideals.
Ματθιας;142032057 said:All things being equal, who has a better chance of walking in criminal court, a person with lots money and high priced lawyers or a person with a public defender?
Money talks. It's been that way all through history. Again, we have the best justice system money can buy.
Or how about Robert Blake?Remember a guy named O.J. Simpson.....?
I nave no respect for Baldwin.
I won't ever watch anything he is in.
I have immense respect for the law. But I have seen it circumvented and prostituted in countless ways. Clearly our system of justice is terrible - until one compares it with all the others.
A current, egregious example is the proliferation of Soros-supported district attorneys. Our system was designed to be adversarial. It can't do so when there are two defense counsels and no prosecutors.
Despite its defects. it is all we have.
Somehow, despite age and experience, I still have ideals. I respect our constitution. I revere our blindfolded lady of justice.
With all its faults it is all we have.
So I reject the accusations posted here, accusations based on emotional speculation without supportive factual documentation, that the fix was in, that 'money changed hands', etc, etc.
I think the judge made the right decision. The prosecution had, in my observation, tainted the case irreversibly. The buck stopped with the prosecution. Defense counsel made their case for dismissal. That is what defense counsel is supposed to do. That is how the adversarial system is supposed to work.
One thing I have been curious about from the start, and now will never know, is whether or not Baldwin would have been convicted by the jury. Using Ca law as a reference, PC #s 192 et seq, since it is familiar to me, I just don't see the prosecution being able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements to convict Baldwin.
I think the blindfolded lady got it right.
And I am keeping my ideals.
Ματθιας;142032057 said:All things being equal, who has a better chance of walking in criminal court, a person with lots money and high priced lawyers or a person with a public defender?
Money talks. It's been that way all through history. Again, we have the best justice system money can buy.
The box of ammunition in question was provided to the Sheriff's office over 2 years after the incident, and after examination, did not match the live ammo that was found at the scene. There is no chain of custody, and it appears no sworn testimony was taken as to its provenance.
While the prosecution should have disclosed the information, they already had live ammo recovered from the set, so I'm not seeing how this new 'mystery' ammo would have been in any way exculpatory for Baldwin.