The district attorney has charged armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with
involuntary manslaughter over the accidental shooting death of
cinematogrpaher Halyna Hutchins last October and will not be pursing
charges against Baldwin.

https://www.tmz.com/2023/04/20/alec-baldwin-involuntary-manslaughter-charges-dropped-rust-dismissed/

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:12:38 -0500, David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:

>pursing

or persuing either

In article <u1sdct$ou15$1@dont-email.me>,
David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>The district attorney has charged armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with
>involuntary manslaughter over the accidental shooting death of
>cinematogrpaher Halyna Hutchins last October and will not be pursing
>charges against Baldwin.

As expected. There's never any point in criminally charging rich people
(or celebrities) for violent crimes. It never ends well...

The family will make it up in civil court - as it should be.

The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.

--
Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
day or two), they always immediately issue two simultaneous statements about it:
1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial, which of course only cult-members pay any attention to)
2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching sports on TV"

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:59:28 PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> As expected. There's never any point in criminally charging rich people
> (or celebrities) for violent crimes. It never ends well...

Phil Spector has joined the chat.

> The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.

A competent prosecutor like Vincent Bugliosi would have nailed O.J.

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:12:49 PM UTC-4, David Carson wrote:
> The district attorney has charged armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with
> involuntary manslaughter over the accidental shooting death of
> cinematogrpaher Halyna Hutchins last October and will not be pursing
> charges against Baldwin.

Were the charges dismissed with or without prejudice?

In article <e9fe349e-ba6e-473c-b730-19be42b51d97n@googlegroups.com>,
Raul TW <raultenniswarehouse@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:59:28PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> As expected. There's never any point in criminally charging rich people
>> (or celebrities) for violent crimes. It never ends well...
>
>Phil Spector has joined the chat.
>
>> The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.
>
>A competent prosecutor like Vincent Bugliosi would have nailed O.J.

I wonder. I always said that the powers that be decided there was no reason
to see LA go up in flames again. Hence the pre-determined result.

I think all the "Oh, the prosecution botched it,,, Oh, Mark Furman blew
it..." stuff was just an attempt at after-the-fact justification for the
result.

--
The book "1984" used to be a cautionary tale;
Now it is a "how-to" manual.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Big Mongo
<bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:12:49?PM UTC-4, David Carson wrote:
>> The district attorney has charged armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with
>> involuntary manslaughter over the accidental shooting death of
>> cinematogrpaher Halyna Hutchins last October and will not be pursing
>> charges against Baldwin.
>
>Were the charges dismissed with or without prejudice?

The D.A. is dropping them, which, correct me if I'm wrong, means the
judge will dismiss them without prejudice.

David Carson

Incisive thinking (and posting) on your part, Raul; I think your take on this is on the mark.

HOWEVER, obtaining an Orthenthal Simpson guilty verdict might STILL have been iffy had The Guy* Who Got Manson The Death Penalty** been unable to thwart the successful effort to move it from The Superior Court for the State of California in and for The County of Los Angeles's branch in upscale Santa Monica*** ten miles east to its downtown jurisdiction (which thusly guaranteed a mostly-black jury, which was the reason then-D.A. Gil Garcetti [sp?] pushed for it, of course).

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
==================* I remain proud that one of the highlights of my career in commercial newstalk call-in radio was that the late Vincent Bugliosi was a thrice-appearance guest 2006-2007 on the mighty KIRO's Radioactive Seattle with Bryan Styble...and not merely phoner interviews, as I've been lucky enough to meet the former prosector up in Washington State as well.
** Overturned by Chief Warren Burger's Supremes, alas.
*** The Superior Court's westside branch had original jurisdiction, inasmuch as the double-murder site 875 Bundy Drive**** lies within in its geograhical parameters.
**** A quite-lovely-but-nothin'-special-for-THAT-neighborhood condo located not even a mile due north of the onetime Max Factor Building, sited on the southwest corner of Wilshire and [what I loved to annoyingly call] "Ted Bundy Drive", where I dyla--I mean DILIGENTLY!--and enthusiastically toiled as a paralegal for two different large L.A. firms during the second half of those glorious 1980s.

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Incisive thinking (and posting) on your part, Raul; I think your take on this is on the mark.
>
> HOWEVER, obtaining an Orthenthal

There's an extra "th" in there.

> Simpson guilty verdict might STILL have been iffy had The Guy* Who Got Manson
> The Death Penalty**

been unable to thwart the successful effort to move it from The Superior Court for the State of California in and for The County of Los Angeles's branch in upscale Santa Monica*** ten miles east to its downtown jurisdiction (which thusly guaranteed a mostly-black jury, which was the reason then-D.A. Gil Garcetti [sp?] pushed for it, of course).
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ===================
> * I remain proud that one of the highlights of my career in commercial newstalk call-in radio was that the late Vincent Bugliosi was a thrice-appearance guest 2006-2007 on the mighty KIRO's Radioactive Seattle with Bryan Styble...and not merely phoner interviews, as I've been lucky enough to meet the former prosector up in Washington State as well.
> ** Overturned by Chief Warren Burger's Supremes, alas.

The death penalty should never ever ever EVER be imposed on anyone.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In the previous article, David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
> >Were the charges dismissed with or without prejudice?
>
> The D.A. is dropping them, which, correct me if I'm wrong, means the
> judge will dismiss them without prejudice.

A dismissal with prejudice requires a finding on the merits or some
similar ruling of fact and law by the court. A simple withdrawal
doesn't count for that. I think Baldwin can rest pretty assured that
these charges are never coming back[1], but there is no realistic
chance they are going to be dismissed with prejudice unless the
prosecutor specifically asks for that and presents a good reason for
doing so.

[1] I don't like him as a person and I have taken a bit of
schadenfreude from the irony of such a moronic, reflexive anti-
gun posturer being in the situation he's in, but this was over-
charging from the start. There was no evidence of the requisite
state of mind, and a good amount of evidence against it. He
should never have been charged.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

J.D. Baldwin <INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> In the previous article, David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>> >Were the charges dismissed with or without prejudice?
>>
>> The D.A. is dropping them, which, correct me if I'm wrong, means the
>> judge will dismiss them without prejudice.
>
> A dismissal with prejudice requires a finding on the merits or some
> similar ruling of fact and law by the court. A simple withdrawal
> doesn't count for that. I think Baldwin can rest pretty assured that
> these charges are never coming back[1], but there is no realistic
> chance they are going to be dismissed with prejudice unless the
> prosecutor specifically asks for that and presents a good reason for
> doing so.
>
> [1] I don't like him as a person and I have taken a bit of
> schadenfreude from the irony of such a moronic, reflexive anti-
> gun posturer being in the situation he's in, but this was over-
> charging from the start. There was no evidence of the requisite
> state of mind, and a good amount of evidence against it. He
> should never have been charged.

His ongoing insistence that he never pulled the trigger in the
face of evidence that he did doesn't say good things about his
mental state...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:28:00 AM UTC-7, J.D. Baldwin wrote:

> [1] I don't like him as a person and I have taken a bit of
> schadenfreude from the irony of such a moronic, reflexive anti-
> gun posturer being in the situation he's in, but this was over-
> charging from the start. There was no evidence of the requisite
> state of mind, and a good amount of evidence against it. He
> should never have been charged.
> --
> _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
> _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
> \ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
> ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

The prosecutor has had over a year to investigate this incident. The investigation has been painstakingly low.
But that's fine, let's get it right and not waste time and taxpayer money filing a case that he has little chance of winning. Particularly against a high profile defendant.

After interviewing all witnesses and reviewing the evidence the prosecutor deems that there is a strong case against Baldwin. He finally decides to file charges in February. Now the prosecutor suddenly decides to drop charges against Baldwin just two months after formally filing them.

Such wasteful incompetence.

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 1:41:02 PM UTC-7, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Incisive thinking (and posting) on your part, Raul; I think your take on this is on the mark.
>
> HOWEVER, obtaining an Orthenthal Simpson guilty verdict might STILL have been iffy had The Guy* Who Got Manson The Death Penalty** been unable to thwart the successful effort to move it from The Superior Court for the State of California in and for The County of Los Angeles's branch in upscale Santa Monica*** ten miles east to its downtown jurisdiction (which thusly guaranteed a mostly-black jury, which was the reason then-D.A. Gil Garcetti [sp?] pushed for it, of course).
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ===================
> * I remain proud that one of the highlights of my career in commercial newstalk call-in radio was that the late Vincent Bugliosi was a thrice-appearance guest 2006-2007 on the mighty KIRO's Radioactive Seattle with Bryan Styble...and not merely phoner interviews, as I've been lucky enough to meet the former prosector up in Washington State as well.
> ** Overturned by Chief Warren Burger's Supremes, alas.
> *** The Superior Court's westside branch had original jurisdiction, inasmuch as the double-murder site 875 Bundy Drive**** lies within in its geograhical parameters.
> **** A quite-lovely-but-nothin'-special-for-THAT-neighborhood condo located not even a mile due north of the onetime Max Factor Building, sited on the southwest corner of Wilshire and [what I loved to annoyingly call] "Ted Bundy Drive", where I dyla--I mean DILIGENTLY!--and enthusiastically toiled as a paralegal for two different large L.A. firms during the second half of those glorious 1980s.

If I recall correctly, The DA Garcetti was very confident in the case and did not object to the change of jurisdiction. Every defendant is guaranteed a trial by a jury of his peers.

jury of one's peers
A guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors.

***It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans***.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079

The O.J. jury consisted of 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Caucasian, half Native American, and 1 Caucasian female.

Ironic that O.J. was judged by a jury of poor blacks when he spent his life avoiding people from that socio-economic demographic.

(1) This was one of the first major cases to feature DNA evidence and the jury either chose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence (literally a billion to one) or the jury was simply intellectually incapable of processing that information.

(2) Christopher Darden made the inexcusable error of parading the defendant in front of the jury with gloves that did not fit. Bugliosi would never have that error.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>J.D. Baldwin <INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

>>>>Were the charges dismissed with or without prejudice?

>>>The D.A. is dropping them, which, correct me if I'm wrong, means the
>>>judge will dismiss them without prejudice.

>>A dismissal with prejudice requires a finding on the merits or some
>>similar ruling of fact and law by the court. A simple withdrawal
>>doesn't count for that. I think Baldwin can rest pretty assured that
>>these charges are never coming back[1], but there is no realistic
>>chance they are going to be dismissed with prejudice unless the
>>prosecutor specifically asks for that and presents a good reason for
>>doing so.

>>[1] I don't like him as a person and I have taken a bit of
>> schadenfreude from the irony of such a moronic, reflexive anti-
>> gun posturer being in the situation he's in, but this was over-
>> charging from the start. There was no evidence of the requisite
>> state of mind, and a good amount of evidence against it. He
>> should never have been charged.

>His ongoing insistence that he never pulled the trigger in the
>face of evidence that he did doesn't say good things about his
>mental state...

That's what I said. There was evidence that Alec Baldwin was lying. The FBI
crime lab said it was not possible to fire the gun without having one's
finger on the trigger.

Now the prosecution is claiming mysterious evidence of wear on the
trigger that it could have moved without being pulled, evidence of wear
that somehow the FBI crime lab missed, in a forensic analysis that has
not been made public, which is what forced the prosecution to drop
charges. Yeah right.

J.D. Baldwin said I was wrong that Alec Baldwin had responsibility under
criminal law to make sure that no live rounds had been loaded before
pulling the trigger. Failure to perform a required duty isn't state of
mind for a crime.

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-7, Raul TW wrote:

> (1) This was one of the first major cases to feature DNA evidence and the jury either chose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence (literally a billion to one) or the jury was simply intellectually incapable of processing that information.
>

Also note that the hapless Judge Ito sequestered this jury and sternly warned several times every day not to discuss the case.
Yet, Ito allowed spousal visits and the spouses communicated info that the jurors were never supposed to have seen (Fuhrman taking the Fifth on the stand, etc). So yeah, not the brightest set of jurors.

When the feeble-minded jury, to everyone's shock, quickly announced that it had come to a verdict after just 3 hours of deliberations, Ito outrageously held off reading it until the next day, ostensibly so that the defense lawyers could be in the courtroom. Judge Ito should have been thrown off the bench right then and there.

The verdict was finally read the next day, after an innocent man was spent another night in jail. Judge Ito was heard crying after the verdict. Good. Judge Ito was a disgrace.

I echo your analysis, Sir TW, except for one phrase.

Simpson was not an "innocent" man, but rather a "not guilty" man, two times over. (I'm fairly certain there is no jurisdiction in the USA where defendants are found "innocent". Meanwhile, every sensible and unblinded-by-bias person who looked at those sordid circumstances on Sunday night, June 12, 1994 at 875 Ted [sorry!] Bundy Drive realizes the football phenom "did it", but anyone who understands American jurisprudence ALSO knows Simpson is, alas, "not guilty".

Meanwhile, musing re the retired Judge Ito: in light of all the security-camera footage of all the blacks-on-Asians street violence we've seen over the last half decade or so...I'm guessing Ito is now regretting cutting all the slack at every trial turn to the blacks as he did (virtue signaling to the underclass, natch)--all the while shafting the white cops AND the white Goldman and Brown families by letting Johnny Cochran make a rhymin' mockery of the (constitutionally-limited) sole shot the late Nicole and Ron had at receiving posthumous justice.

Anyway, Raul, kindly keep on with your postings in various threads; this newsgroup needs thinkers like you!

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

Raul TW <raultenniswarehouse@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-7, Raul TW wrote:

>>(1) This was one of the first major cases to feature DNA evidence and the jury either chose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence (literally a billion to one) or the jury was simply intellectually incapable of processing that information.

>Also note that the hapless Judge Ito sequestered this jury and sternly
>warned several times every day not to discuss the case.
>Yet, Ito allowed spousal visits and the spouses communicated info that
>the jurors were never supposed to have seen (Fuhrman taking the Fifth on
>the stand, etc). So yeah, not the brightest set of jurors.

>When the feeble-minded jury, to everyone's shock, quickly announced that
>it had come to a verdict after just 3 hours of deliberations, Ito
>outrageously held off reading it until the next day, ostensibly so that
>the defense lawyers could be in the courtroom. Judge Ito should have
>been thrown off the bench right then and there.

>The verdict was finally read the next day, after an innocent man was
>spent another night in jail. Judge Ito was heard crying after the
>verdict. Good. Judge Ito was a disgrace.

O.J. was not found innocent. The jury convicted the Los Angeles police
department.

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:36:02 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
wrote:

>His ongoing insistence that he never pulled the trigger in the
>face of evidence that he did doesn't say good things about his
>mental state...

That doesn't reflect on his mental state. It reflects on his character.

He knows what happened.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com

In the previous article, David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
> >His ongoing insistence that he never pulled the trigger in the
> >face of evidence that he did doesn't say good things about his
> >mental state...
>
> That doesn't reflect on his mental state. It reflects on his character.

You're not wrong, but a demonstrable lie would be evidence of his
mental state at the time of the crime. ("Evidence of" is not
equivalent to "Solid proof of," though I don't likely have to explain
the difference to you.) It's natural that if he himself concluded he
was being reckless, he would tell some lie to cover up that mental
state.

It's about the one thing that could get the prosecution to a
conviction on the question. And of course it's a crime in itself to
lie to investigators. But I think this matter is pretty well closed.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 04/20/2023 09:59 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> The family will make it up in civil court - as it should be.
>
> The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.

An interesting take on that trial - http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

In article <u2d5dl$1q5ob$1@dont-email.me>,
Guilty Bastard <ididit@getaway.car> wrote:
>On 04/20/2023 09:59 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> The family will make it up in civil court - as it should be.
>>
>> The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.
>
>An interesting take on that trial - http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

Could you say, in a few words, what the jist of that is?

I don't click on links (Actually, using trn, I don't click on anything)

--
Reading any post by Fred Hodgin, you're always faced with the choice of:
lunatic, moron, or troll.

I always try to be generous and give benefit of the doubt, by assuming troll.

On 04/27/2023 06:02 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <u2d5dl$1q5ob$1@dont-email.me>,
> Guilty Bastard <ididit@getaway.car> wrote:
>> On 04/20/2023 09:59 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> The family will make it up in civil court - as it should be.
>>>
>>> The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.
>>
>> An interesting take on that trial - http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

> Could you say, in a few words, what the jist of that is?
>
> I don't click on links (Actually, using trn, I don't click on anything)

the gist is that the trial was a farce and a setup from the start.

dunno why anyone would fake a trial but it makes for interesting reading.

In article <u2enqn$2333s$1@dont-email.me>,
Guilty Bastard <ididit@getaway.car> wrote:
>On 04/27/2023 06:02 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <u2d5dl$1q5ob$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Guilty Bastard <ididit@getaway.car> wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2023 09:59 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>> The family will make it up in civil court - as it should be.
>>>>
>>>> The precedent was set with OJ, and it is a good precedent.
>>>
>>> An interesting take on that trial - http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf
>
>> Could you say, in a few words, what the jist of that is?
>>
>> I don't click on links (Actually, using trn, I don't click on anything)
>
>
>the gist is that the trial was a farce and a setup from the start.
>
>dunno why anyone would fake a trial but it makes for interesting reading.

OK

--
The coronavirus is the first thing, in his 74 pathetic years of existence,
that the orange menace has come into contact with, that he couldn't browbeat,
bully, bullshit, bribe, sue, legally harrass, get Daddy to fix, get his
siblings to bail him out of, or, if all else fails, simply wish it away.