Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Legal question

177 views
Skip to first unread message

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:04:32 AM10/23/21
to
Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.

This is almost like a law school exam question.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:09:06 AM10/23/21
to
On Oct 22, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<95478e88-58c7-4a8d...@googlegroups.com>):

> Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin
> have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
>
> This is almost like a law school exam question.

You should ask a lawyer.

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:20:04 AM10/23/21
to
I don't really need to ask. I already have a firm educated opinion. But I was just wondering, for a laugh, how delusional people like you (who love to pretend they know as much as real lawyers) would approach the problem and form an opinion. Go ahead, take a shot (no pun intended).

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:26:40 AM10/23/21
to
On Oct 22, 2021, Bill Vanek wrote
(in article<0001HW.2723C25D0...@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):
But to answer your question, anyone who pulls a trigger is responsible for
every bullet that leaves that gun. I think he is criminally liable for that
reason, but he will never get charged criminally, and if he were, he would
get off because he did nothing unconventional in the movie production
business. But he could lose a civil case for the reason I said above. The
people who are in trouble are an assistant director who handed him the gun
and assured him it was a “cold gun”, and the idiot armorer who put 3 guns
on the same table from which the assistant director picked. I am baffled that
they would even have live ammo anywhere in that situation. The gun was
apparently pointed at the camera, meaning at the camera operator.

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:37:27 AM10/23/21
to
Interesting. I would be hard pressed to give you a passing grade on that. Maybe a C- for effort? Let's see what the others have to say before I give you the correct answer. You basically contradicted yourself, and your answer was internally inconsistent. I will tell you that any legal analysis has to start by looking at the applicable statutes in the relevant jurisdiction(s). How can you conclude he has criminal liability without first knowing what statute applies to these facts and conveys liability?

da pickle

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 6:38:44 AM10/23/21
to
Priceless ... the anonymous internet troll believes there is a "correct
answer" to a "legal question".

OneL always has Contracts first semester ... the students who answer
"questions" with "answers" that they believe to be "correct" usually do
not finish law school.

Priceless

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 6:53:31 AM10/23/21
to
Still pretending I am "anonymous?" lol I got a B+ in contracts by giving the (mostly) correct answers, and the word was that our prof had only given three As in ten years.

da pickle

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 7:04:22 AM10/23/21
to
Fail ... a double ... if only "you" were "in charge" there would be no
need for judges or juries or other "lawyers" ... you, the Mien Heir,
could just provide all the correct answers. So much easier than leaving
it to real people.

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 7:13:22 AM10/23/21
to
Maybe it's different in the swamp, but your decades long fantasy that there is no correct answers in law is patently false in the real world.

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 10:15:12 AM10/23/21
to
~ You should ask a lawyer.

LOL.

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 10:21:20 AM10/23/21
to
On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ Interesting. I would be hard pressed to give you a passing grade on that. Maybe a C- for effort? Let's see what the others have to say before I give you the correct answer.

Did anyone else pick up the hidden clue that Blabbermouth was burning up the internet looking for the opinions of real lawyers between 7:37:27 PM and 9:37:27 PM?

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 10:24:19 AM10/23/21
to
~ Still pretending I am "anonymous?" lol I got a B+ in contracts by giving the (mostly) correct answers, and the word was that our prof had only given three As in ten years.

Yeah, sure you did. And you've been playing poker since you were 4 or 5 years old, you specialized in stud, and you played poker with Paul.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:03:40 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, da pickle wrote
(in article<SfGdneJLd763e-78...@giganews.com>):
I’ve asked him more than once why we even have courts. And I wonder how he
reconciles all those 5-4 SC decisions. They are all very smart people. Surely
they should all know the “correct” answer to any legal questions.

And BTW, you just showed why you retired as a lawyer, and he will retire as a
“consultant”, with precisely one client.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:04:10 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<7e73e8af-bc63-42ef...@googlegroups.com>):

> and the word was

Lol

da pickle

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 12:57:27 PM10/23/21
to
Keep digging ...

While you search for the "correct answer" to the question you proposed
... tell us what the "correct answer" is about Saule Omarova. Is she
"qualified"? Should she be confirmed?

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 1:15:28 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<db990715-3c82-4676...@googlegroups.com>):

> Maybe it's different in the swamp, but your decades long fantasy that there
> is no correct answers in law is patently false in the real world.

Funnier by the minute. A guy who utterly failed at law telling a real lawyer
about “the real world” of law. You should lecture James, too. Go order
some pens for the real lawyers you secretary for.

BTSinAustin

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 1:26:08 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
>
> This is almost like a law school exam question.

One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he was handed "cold", it's hard to imagine why he would be liable. The woman that handed him the gun is another matter.

Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted the ammo...

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 1:28:01 PM10/23/21
to
You have a lot of very strange fantasies about me. I guess that's just your jealousy. Understandable.

da pickle

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 1:37:08 PM10/23/21
to
One has to pick a bible to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth ... or just ask an anonymous internet troll ... now that
is "the truth". LOL

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 1:45:50 PM10/23/21
to
Are you sure? Vanek said he is criminally liable, and you know how much he knows about the law. He was the only person in America to figure out that Trump was not impeached. Everyone else thought he was impeached twice, lol

Dutch

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 3:40:05 PM10/23/21
to
Please explain why "you" should be considered any more "real" than BillB.

Dutch

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:05:41 PM10/23/21
to
That does not appear to be a legal question.

Dutch

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:08:04 PM10/23/21
to
In what sense is BillB anonymous? You don't know his street address?

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:22:01 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:08:04 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> In what sense is BillB anonymous? You don't know his street address?

In the sense that I have kicked his ass up one side of this newsgroup and down the other for about 20 years and he is a petulant
sore loser, much like vanek.

VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:40:13 PM10/23/21
to
On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:04:32 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability?
Civil liability? Show your work.

Why, you've never shown yours? Risky and I kick your ignorant ass all over this site and the best
you got is starting another thread where you embarrass yourself again?

FUCK OFF!


BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:42:14 PM10/23/21
to
Calm down...you can't afford to waste any Depends with these supply chain issues.

VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:44:15 PM10/23/21
to
On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:26:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 2021, Bill Vanek wrote
> > (in article<0001HW.2723C25D0...@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):
> > > On Oct 22, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<95478e88-58c7-4a8d...@googlegroups.com>):
> > >
> > > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin
> > > > have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> > > >
> > > > This is almost like a law school exam question.
> > >
> > > You should ask a lawyer.
> > But to answer your question, anyone who pulls a trigger is responsible for
> > every bullet that leaves that gun. I think he is criminally liable for that
> > reason, but he will never get charged criminally, and if he were, he would
> > get off because he did nothing unconventional in the movie production
> > business. But he could lose a civil case for the reason I said above. The
> > people who are in trouble are an assistant director who handed him the gun
> > and assured him it was a “cold gun”, and the idiot armorer who put 3 guns
> > on the same table from which the assistant director picked. I am baffled that
> > they would even have live ammo anywhere in that situation. The gun was
> > apparently pointed at the camera, meaning at the camera operator.

> Interesting. I would be hard pressed to give you a passing grade on that.

Being you're unqualified. Hell, Risky and I have already given you an "F" for Failed to learn to lose.


BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:47:34 PM10/23/21
to
Looks like Supercop jerrytard can't come up with an answer. Go figure. lol

VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:52:21 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 7:21:20 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
> ~ Interesting. I would be hard pressed to give you a passing grade on that. Maybe a C- for effort? Let's see what the others have to say before I give you the correct answer.
>
> Did anyone else pick up the hidden clue that Blabbermouth was burning up the internet looking for the opinions of real lawyers between 7:37:27 PM and 9:37:27 PM?

No, but I'm beginning to think da pickle might actually be educated in law.
having been 'educated' in law myself (for POST work), it seems pickle has
BackupBillB on the ropes, just as you and I did.

How long until RunBackBillB disappears and pops up making another OP?



VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 4:55:45 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:15:28 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
Or re-ask him:
"Name, address, link, number, owner of that law firm that hired you as a lawyer because they loved you."

That'll run him off, again...

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:15:26 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 3:38:44 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
~ OneL always has Contracts first semester ... the students who answer
> "questions" with "answers" that they believe to be "correct" usually do
> not finish law school.

Here's a legal question- what will be the elapsed time until Blabbermouth incorporates the schooling Pickle provided into the fabric of his fictional character? I will award any winner who answers correctly the same RGP status as Paul for 3 months. Except for that dumb, inbred shit, 'splashy'.

>
> Priceless

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:19:33 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> >
> > This is almost like a law school exam question.

~ One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he was handed "cold", it's hard to imagine why he would be liable. The woman that handed him the gun is another matter.

I think both of those comments are substantially reasonable. But, seriously - in the same situation as Baldwin there is not any circumstance under which I wouldn't demand to test fire a round before the scene. None.

> Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted the ammo...

Nah.

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:26:03 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:40:05 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> > Fail ... a double ... if only "you" were "in charge" there would be no
> > need for judges or juries or other "lawyers" ... you, the Mien Heir,
> > could just provide all the correct answers. So much easier than leaving
> > it to real people.

~ Please explain why "you" should be considered any more "real" than BillB.

Pickle has some annoying opinions but he doesn't have the major clinical personality disorder of Blabbermouth. That disorder isn't a good fit for his claim that he has a professional degree. If I saw a news item that somone murdered a real William Bradley and assumed his identity I would exclaim, 'Ah! That explains it.'

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:26:45 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:08:04 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
~ In what sense is BillB anonymous? You don't know his street address?

What is it?

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:30:55 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
That's a big "other than". Was he criminally negligent for failing to do so? Civilly negligent? Remember, there are no correct answers in law, so it is impossible to be wrong. pickle said so.

Can you imagine going to pickle for legal advice, paying him his princely fee of $25/hr, only to be told there are no answers to any legal issue? Would you ask for your money back? lol

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:38:40 PM10/23/21
to
Naturally. Everyone knows you have not even a casual acquaintance with reality.

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:47:44 PM10/23/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 2:30:55 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> > >
> > > This is almost like a law school exam question.
> > One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he was handed "cold", it's hard to imagine why he would be liable. The woman that handed him the gun is another matter.
> >
> > Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted the ammo...

~ That's a big "other than". Was he criminally negligent for failing to do so? Civilly negligent? Remember, there are no correct answers in law, so it is impossible to be wrong. pickle said so.
>
> Can you imagine going to pickle for legal advice, paying him his princely fee of $25/hr, only to be told there are no answers to any legal issue? Would you ask for your money back? lol

Since we're discussing vocations, how's your career as a gigolo going?

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 5:48:59 PM10/23/21
to
~ Naturally. Everyone knows you have not even a casual acquaintance with reality.

You aren't reality and never will be.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 6:33:03 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, risky biz wrote
(in article<f4bb6c70-d704-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does
> > > Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> > >
> > > This is almost like a law school exam question.
>
> > One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he
> > was handed "cold", it's hard to imagine why he would be liable. The woman
> > that handed him the gun is another matter.
>
> I think both of those comments are substantially reasonable. But, seriously -
> in the same situation as Baldwin there is not any circumstance under which I
> wouldn't demand to test fire a round before the scene. None.
>
> > Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted
> > the ammo...
>
> Nah.

That doesn’t tell you what the second round is. the only way to be sure is
to empty the chamber and mag or cylinder, and look at all the rounds, and
then you still have to know what you’re looking for.

risky biz

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 6:56:04 PM10/23/21
to
I was assuming that the prop rounds look different and that one that proved to be faux would look like the remaining rounds and also different from live rounds. That could be incorrect but shouldn't be. There also should never have been a live round anywhere near a film set as someone else said.

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 7:41:06 PM10/23/21
to
More jealousy.

BillB

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 7:42:27 PM10/23/21
to
Dripping with jealousy.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 8:28:08 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, risky biz wrote
(in article<4bdad2f8-620c-4370...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 3:33:03 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2021, risky biz wrote
> > (in article<f4bb6c70-d704-4d2c...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does
> > > > > Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is almost like a law school exam question.
> > >
> > > > One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he
> > > > was handed "cold", it's hard to imagine why he would be liable. The woman
> > > > that handed him the gun is another matter.
> > >
> > > I think both of those comments are substantially reasonable. But,
> > > seriously -
> > > in the same situation as Baldwin there is not any circumstance under which
> > > I
> > > wouldn't demand to test fire a round before the scene. None.
> > >
> > > > Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted
> > > > the ammo...
> > >
> > > Nah.
> > That doesn’t tell you what the second round is. the only way to be sure is
> > to empty the chamber and mag or cylinder, and look at all the rounds, and
> > then you still have to know what you’re looking for.
>
> I was assuming that the prop rounds look different

I’m sure they do.

> and that one that proved
> to be faux would look like the remaining rounds and also different from live
> rounds. That could be incorrect but shouldn't be. There also should never
> have been a live round anywhere near a film set as someone else said.

It’s coming out now that there were a couple of other mishaps - negligent
discharges before this. There was live ammo there. The more that comes out
about this, the more of a cluster fuck that whole production appears to be.
Baldwin was the producer, so that might add to his liability.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 8:29:10 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<e453c52c-79de-45a9...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:15:28 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
> > (in article<db990715-3c82-4676...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > Maybe it's different in the swamp, but your decades long fantasy that there
> > > is no correct answers in law is patently false in the real world.
> > Funnier by the minute. A guy who utterly failed at law telling a real lawyer
> > about “the real world” of law. You should lecture James, too. Go order
> > some pens for the real lawyers you secretary for.
>
> You have a lot of very strange fantasies about me. I guess that's just your
> jealousy. Understandable.

You seem to have a lot of fantasies about people having fantasies about you.
Probably the narcissism.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 23, 2021, 8:31:27 PM10/23/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, Dutch wrote
(in article <sl1oef$3qu$1...@dont-email.me>):
He exists online, and has court cases that appear in searches. BillB does
not. He has gone to BARGE multiple times, and actually met people. BillB has
claimed to have met only one person, who happens to be dead. You should ask
to meet up for coffee. You can’t be too far from each other.

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 12:12:20 AM10/24/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 5:29:10 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<e453c52c-79de-45a9...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:15:28 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<db990715-3c82-4676...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > Maybe it's different in the swamp, but your decades long fantasy that there
> > > > is no correct answers in law is patently false in the real world.
> > > Funnier by the minute. A guy who utterly failed at law telling a real lawyer
> > > about “the real world” of law. You should lecture James, too. Go order
> > > some pens for the real lawyers you secretary for.
> >
> > You have a lot of very strange fantasies about me. I guess that's just your
> > jealousy. Understandable.
>
> You seem to have a lot of fantasies about people having fantasies about you.
> Probably the narcissism.

But you do have many fantasies about me. Believing things that are prima facie absurd, backed by nothing but your imagination, are fantasies. You fantasize about me constantly. Same with the other stooges. I just think it's pretty weird, that's all. You aren't one of those Mark Chapman types, are you?

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 1:05:27 AM10/24/21
to
Two, specifically. His grandmother's leaky porch (in which he was laughed out of court) and the car that hit the cow.


BillB does
> not. He has gone to BARGE multiple times, and actually met people. BillB has
> claimed to have met only one person, who happens to be dead.

What does this have to do with me being "anonymous?"

>You should ask
> to meet up for coffee. You can’t be too far from each other.

Dutch and I are practically neighbors. He lives in one of the hottest hipster neighborhoods in Vancouver. It has exploded in popularity in recent years. He must have made millions. We'll probably never meet. I am very comfortable with our online friendship. I just like to keep the internet and my offline life separate. I don't think there is anything particularly unusual or mysterious about that. It doesn't make me any less real or more anonymous. I am sure I will meet some past or present RGPers when I hit the road soon to play poker full-time around the continent. It's not like I would avoid meeting anyone if it happened organically.

Dutch

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:11:53 AM10/24/21
to
The answer is simpler than that. Pickle's "real boy" shtick is just
something he uses against his opponents because he did it once and liked
the response it got, so he now repeats it like a parrot in a feeble
attempt to get under people's skin. The reality of the internet in my
view is that it is wise to maintain a degree of anonymity. It doesn't
matter if an online identity is real, partially real, or completely
fictional, what matters is the contents of your posts, and his, as long
as I have watched them, are lame. The bottom line is, everybody here is
real.. DUH.
.

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:23:30 AM10/24/21
to
You're right. There are already some nutballs on here who want my address. For what reason I can only speculate, but it can't be good. There are a lot of weirdos out there, and a lot of people who are intensely jealous of people like you and me. We do, after all, live in Vancouver.

Dutch

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:46:54 AM10/24/21
to
I know right? I pinch myself sometimes.

da pickle

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 9:44:45 AM10/24/21
to
When s/he/it talks to s/he/it-self it always get confused.

da pickle

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 9:45:31 AM10/24/21
to
Worked

da pickle

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 9:59:09 AM10/24/21
to
Nice segue ... you claim to have "the" "correct answer" ... there are
lots of "answers" ...

Try "results" ... because the only "answer" that matters in any Legal
Question is who decides the result.

[You might add "it depends" to your legal vocabulary.]



Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 11:22:57 AM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, da pickle wrote
(in article<zKGdnYS44sY---j8...@giganews.com>):
Also, “in my opinion”, or, “I always advise my clients to...”. Those
are words I always heard from the attorneys I respected. I really wanted to
have it out with the idiot Darcy Spears on channel 13, but our attorney
slowed me down with those dreaded words, “I always advise my clients not to
bother...” Shockingly, I listened. More shockingly, channel 13 actually had
the decency to repeat in their report the few words I said over the phone.

VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 1:50:54 PM10/24/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> >
> > This is almost like a law school exam question.

> One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he was handed "cold", it's hard to
> imagine why he would be liable.

You're right, according to SAG rules.

> The woman that handed him the gun is another matter.
>
> Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted the ammo...

And a good conspiracy at that. Alex Baldwin was one of the producers. And it's a known fact he's
and asshole. And labor problems on site makes it easy for a setup as you're suggesting.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, writers in Hollywood are still upset...

VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 1:55:30 PM10/24/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:42:14 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:40:13 PM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:04:32 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin have criminal liability?
> > Civil liability? Show your work.
> > Why, you've never shown yours?

Note that BackupBillB runs from this question.

> > Risky and I kick your ignorant ass all over this site and the best
> > you got is starting another thread where you embarrass yourself again?

Note that BackupBillB runs from this question.

> > FUCK OFF!

> Calm down...you can't afford to waste any Depends with these supply chain issues.

Note that BackupBillB runs....


VegasJerry

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 1:56:57 PM10/24/21
to
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:47:34 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:26:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > > On Oct 22, 2021, Bill Vanek wrote
> > > > (in article<0001HW.2723C25D0...@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):
> > > > > On Oct 22, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > > > (in article<95478e88-58c7-4a8d...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does Baldwin
> > > > > > have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is almost like a law school exam question.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should ask a lawyer.
> > > > But to answer your question, anyone who pulls a trigger is responsible for
> > > > every bullet that leaves that gun. I think he is criminally liable for that
> > > > reason, but he will never get charged criminally, and if he were, he would
> > > > get off because he did nothing unconventional in the movie production
> > > > business. But he could lose a civil case for the reason I said above. The
> > > > people who are in trouble are an assistant director who handed him the gun
> > > > and assured him it was a “cold gun”, and the idiot armorer who put 3 guns
> > > > on the same table from which the assistant director picked. I am baffled that
> > > > they would even have live ammo anywhere in that situation. The gun was
> > > > apparently pointed at the camera, meaning at the camera operator.
> >
> > > Interesting. I would be hard pressed to give you a passing grade on that.
> > Being you're unqualified. Hell, Risky and I have already given you an "F" for Failed to learn to lose.

> Looks like Supercop jerrytard can't come up with an answer. Go figure. lol

Note that BackupBillB runs from his non question.
Just like the post above...








Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:00:24 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 23, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<1843df6b-a534-4aa9...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:26:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:04:32 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > Armchair lawyers (and real lawyers), from what we know so far, does
> > > Baldwin have criminal liability? Civil liability? Show your work.
> > >
> > > This is almost like a law school exam question.
> > One would hope not. Other than being an idiot for not checking the gun he
> > was handed "cold", it's hard to imagine why he would be liable. The woman
> > that handed him the gun is another matter.
> >
> > Conspiracy theory of the day... The union people that walked off planted
> > the ammo...
>
> Are you sure? Vanek said he is criminally liable, and you know how much he
> knows about the law.

Gee, you seem to have gone silent on this one. Are you understanding that I'm
right? Do you have that sick, sinking feeling that the law really is one big
gray area?

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:07:20 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<9591d7c0-12f5-470e...@googlegroups.com>):
Everything. If Dutch were curious, he could ask to see your picture ID, just
to cement things. You do understand that *everything* that anyone here knows
about you is merely what you have claimed to be true. There is no outside
corroboration at all. It’s the same with me, but at least I admit it, and
freely state that I prefer to be anonymous here.

> > You should ask
> > to meet up for coffee. You can’t be too far from each other.
>
> Dutch and I are practically neighbors. He lives in one of the hottest hipster
> neighborhoods in Vancouver. It has exploded in popularity in recent years. He
> must have made millions. We'll probably never meet. I am very comfortable
> with our online friendship. I just like to keep the internet and my offline
> life separate. I don't think there is anything particularly unusual or
> mysterious about that.

There is. you have done this before with other posters. You do not want to
meet anyone in person, even people who you get on very well with. It’s just
a curious thing, is all.

> It doesn't make me any less real or more anonymous. I
> am sure I will meet some past or present RGPers when I hit the road soon to
> play poker full-time around the continent.

Lose your “job”?

> It's not like I would avoid
> meeting anyone if it happened organically.

Bullshit. You mean if it happened through a grievous oversight on your part.
But then, how would anyone know it’s you? “Are you Bill Bradley?”
“Sorry, no."

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:10:24 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, Dutch wrote
(in article <sl2tf2$945$1...@dont-email.me>):
Of course. We all remember that you “know” what other people really mean
when they say and do things. It’s your gift.

> The reality of the internet in my
> view is that it is wise to maintain a degree of anonymity. It doesn't
> matter if an online identity is real, partially real, or completely
> fictional, what matters is the contents of your posts,

I agree completely. But BillB wants so badly for us to believe every fucking
wonderful thing he says about himself, and he has never backed up a fucking
thing. Compare to... well anyone else here.


Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:10:59 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<b9a568b4-f69b-45e2...@googlegroups.com>):
Yes, blessedly free of blacks, right?

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:25:15 PM10/24/21
to
Right about what??

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:26:17 PM10/24/21
to
Only a hardcore racist like you would think that.

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:27:38 PM10/24/21
to
What wonderful things? Be specific.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:52:02 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<b26b5cc7-208e-4fac...@googlegroups.com>):
What were you replying to? What did you say? WTF do you think I meant? He’s
criminally liable, and the law is one big gray area. I also said he probably
won’t be charged criminally - prosecutors do get to make that decision, you
know. There is something about reasonable and customary precaution - or
something like that, in NM law. But what is the “correct” answer? Were
any precautions that were taken to prevent that death reasonable and
customary? According to you, there will be NO dispute over that, because
there will be one correct answer.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:53:50 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<b722896b-5184-4213...@googlegroups.com>):
Or talk about how wonderful Vancouver is.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 2:57:26 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<5d3d09d6-fbe9-477e...@googlegroups.com>):
You talk about yourself endlessly, all positive things. The only person who
ever came close was Joe Long. But he didn’t hide. You even outed him, like
the pig you are, about some financial issue with a house. And you rail
against people who you think are trying to do that to you. You went after
Susan, Beldin, maybe Bea, too. I’m sure there were others. You really are a
pig.

BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 3:24:29 PM10/24/21
to
I asked you specifically what "wonderful" things I say about myself, and you came up completely empty. Again. Of course. I haven't said anything positive about myself except in response to accusations and insults from idiots like you. And I have never gone after anyone who hasn't gone after me or one of my friends first. Joe Long, in particular, mercilessly harassed Ramashiva, who was a friend of mine, and followed it up by calling me a "welcher" every day for months on end over a $2 gag. Meanwhile, as he was constantly insulting Ramashiva and me from the safety of his computer, he was ACTUALLY "welching" on a $400,000 debt. Ironic, isn't it? So ya, I put the hammer down on him. He deserved it. Like the saying goes, if you keep lying about me, I'll keep telling the truth about you. And you lie about me A LOT, along with the other stooge riskytard.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 6:19:03 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<8ab62770-f376-48be...@googlegroups.com>):
Utter bullshit.

> And I have never gone after anyone who hasn't gone after me or one of my
> friends first. Joe Long, in particular, mercilessly harassed Ramashiva, who
> was a friend of mine,

LOL. I wonder what your definition of “friend” is. is that like a
Facebook friend?

> and followed it up by calling me a "welcher" every day
> for months on end over a $2 gag. Meanwhile, as he was constantly insulting
> Ramashiva and me from the safety of his computer,

Everyone knew who he was, and where to find him. “Safety of his
computer”? That’s you, not him.

> he was ACTUALLY "welching"
> on a $400,000 debt. Ironic, isn't it? So ya, I put the hammer down on him.

Hammer!!!! Wow. You are one tough guy. What about Susan? Beldin? And any
others I’m forgetting? And don’t tell me you haven’t also tried to find
every other last person here. It’s what you do, creep.


BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 6:48:18 PM10/24/21
to
Not bullshit. 100% true. And why have I been relentlessly attacked and insulted by right-wing assholes like yourself? Because I recognize the long-term effects of systemic racism and advocate for fairness and justice for minority groups, and African-Americans in particular. That is the root of it all.

> > And I have never gone after anyone who hasn't gone after me or one of my
> > friends first. Joe Long, in particular, mercilessly harassed Ramashiva, who
> > was a friend of mine,
> LOL. I wonder what your definition of “friend” is. is that like a
> Facebook friend?

A friend is someone I have a friendly relationship with, be it online or offline.

> > and followed it up by calling me a "welcher" every day
> > for months on end over a $2 gag. Meanwhile, as he was constantly insulting
> > Ramashiva and me from the safety of his computer,
> Everyone knew who he was, and where to find him. “Safety of his
> computer”?

Who wanted to "find him?" For what? Who wants to "find me?" For what?

>That’s you, not him.

No, it's not me at all. I don't hide behind a cloak of anonymity like you. I am personally and legally responsible for every single thing I say, and I don't say anything to or about anyone that I would hesitate for one moment to say to their face.


> > he was ACTUALLY "welching"
> > on a $400,000 debt. Ironic, isn't it? So ya, I put the hammer down on him.
> Hammer!!!! Wow. You are one tough guy.

>What about Susan? Beldin? And any
> others I’m forgetting? And don’t tell me you haven’t also tried to find
> every other last person here. It’s what you do, creep.

I haven't tried to "find" anyone. For what?? More nutty fantasies about me. Susan attacked me relentlessly and called me a "racist" on a near daily basis for sticking up for African-Americans. She didn't do it one or twice. She did it at least 100 times. Worse, she falsely accused me of stalking her and calling her restaurant "asking about her" which is absolutely ridiculous. She also lied her face off and said she knew it was me by the "country code" on her call display, when there are no country codes for calls between the US and Canada. That means she was deliberately libeling me in a very serious way, which I do not take lightly (being someone who is not anonymous).

I didn't do anything to Beldin except mock him and kick his ass every time he dared try to argue with me. Everyone mocked and teased Beldin because he made it a daily habit of insulting everyone on this newsgroup, all day, every day. It was part of his schtick and he craved the return attention.

I have said over and over again throughout the two decades I have posted here, I will give back twice the respect anyone gives me, but if you personally harass and attack me, I will defend myself, and neither you or anyone else will come out on top of that exchange (as you have found out the hard way). Call it a personality flaw if you want.

Dutch

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 7:33:34 PM10/24/21
to
It's a theory numbnuts. Do you have a better theory about he would
resort to this "real boy" shtick so incessantly? It's mildly annoying,
and people on your side of the fence put a lot of stock in annoying
liberals, so it adds up.

>> The reality of the internet in my
>> view is that it is wise to maintain a degree of anonymity. It doesn't
>> matter if an online identity is real, partially real, or completely
>> fictional, what matters is the contents of your posts,
>
> I agree completely. But BillB wants so badly for us to believe every fucking
> wonderful thing he says about himself, and he has never backed up a fucking
> thing. Compare to... well anyone else here.

I don't put much stock in the bragging but there's nothing about the
identity he portrays that strikes me as any less credible than "anyone
else here".

Dutch

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 7:38:02 PM10/24/21
to
There are A LOT of Asians here, of many different origins, and
anti-Asian racism is definitely a thing, so its not like we have the
perfect Anglo-Saxon nirvana that people like you dream about. If you are
looking to live somewhere where you aren't going to get triggered then
Vancouver is not for you.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 9:13:38 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<3c4fb068-81a9-48ae...@googlegroups.com>):
Because 90% of your posts have one intention - to piss people off. You are an
asshole.

> Because I recognize the
> long-term effects of systemic racism and advocate for fairness and justice
> for minority groups, and African-Americans in particular. That is the root of
> it all.

No, see above. We just laugh at your racial nonsense.

> > > And I have never gone after anyone who hasn't gone after me or one of my
> > > friends first. Joe Long, in particular, mercilessly harassed Ramashiva, who
> > > was a friend of mine,
> > LOL. I wonder what your definition of “friend” is. is that like a
> > Facebook friend?
>
> A friend is someone I have a friendly relationship with, be it online or
> offline.

Do you consider Dutch a friend?

> > > and followed it up by calling me a "welcher" every day
> > > for months on end over a $2 gag. Meanwhile, as he was constantly insulting
> > > Ramashiva and me from the safety of his computer,
> > Everyone knew who he was, and where to find him. “Safety of his
> > computer”?
>
> Who wanted to "find him?" For what? Who wants to "find me?" For what?
>
> > That’s you, not him.
>
> No, it's not me at all. I don't hide behind a cloak of anonymity like you.

You sort of do. You are hiding.

> I am personally and legally responsible for every single thing I say, and I
> don't say anything to or about anyone that I would hesitate for one moment to
> say to their face.

How the fuck can you say anything to anyone’s face? You make sure that you
will never come face to face with anyone.

> > > he was ACTUALLY "welching"
> > > on a $400,000 debt. Ironic, isn't it?

Business decisions within the law are not generally considered welching. Not
paying a bet is.

> > > So ya, I put the hammer down on him.
> > Hammer!!!! Wow. You are one tough guy.
>
> > What about Susan? Beldin? And any
> > others I’m forgetting? And don’t tell me you haven’t also tried to
> > find
> > every other last person here. It’s what you do, creep.
>
> I haven't tried to "find" anyone. For what?? More nutty fantasies about me.
> Susan attacked me relentlessly and called me a "racist" on a near daily basis
> for sticking up for African-Americans.

You are a racist, but not for that reason. You think blacks are helpless, and
need the help of everyone. Everyone but you, of course. You don’t have time
for that.

> She didn't do it one or twice. She did
> it at least 100 times. Worse, she falsely accused me of stalking her and
> calling her restaurant "asking about her" which is absolutely ridiculous. She
> also lied her face off and said she knew it was me by the "country code" on
> her call display, when there are no country codes for calls between the US
> and Canada. That means she was deliberately libeling me in a very serious
> way, which I do not take lightly (being someone who is not anonymous).
>
> I didn't do anything to Beldin except mock him and kick his ass every time he
> dared try to argue with me.

Didn’t you call his employer? Or threaten to? Or was that someone else?

> Everyone mocked and teased Beldin because he made
> it a daily habit of insulting everyone on this newsgroup, all day, every day.
> It was part of his schtick and he craved the return attention.

Sounds a lot like you. Is he your mentor?

> I have said over and over again throughout the two decades I have posted
> here, I will give back twice the respect anyone gives me, but if you
> personally harass and attack me, I will defend myself, and neither you or
> anyone else will come out on top of that exchange (as you have found out the
> hard way). Call it a personality flaw if you want.

I asked above if you considered Dutch a friend. Dutch has always been polite
and respectful towards you. Yet you mocked and insulted him relentlessly more
than once around here. So you are full of shit.


Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 9:15:04 PM10/24/21
to
On Oct 24, 2021, Dutch wrote
(in article <sl4qg9$q7g$1...@dont-email.me>):
WTF is a “real boy”


Dutch

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 11:10:27 PM10/24/21
to
It's a picklelism that denotes anyone who a) has revealed his identity
to his satisfaction, and b) is not a liberal


BillB

unread,
Oct 24, 2021, 11:37:35 PM10/24/21
to
False. The overriding intention of my posts is to record for posterity my opinion on a variety of topics, and, secondarily, to try to teach people to think critically and logically at a very high level (never works with right-wingers, but I keep banging my head against that wall anyway). I love to teach and share my gifts with others.

> > Because I recognize the and share
> > long-term effects of systemic racism and advocate for fairness and justice
> > for minority groups, and African-Americans in particular. That is the root of
> > it all.

> No, see above. We just laugh at your racial nonsense.

You laugh because you are ignorant. You aren't willing to learn.

> > > > And I have never gone after anyone who hasn't gone after me or one of my
> > > > friends first. Joe Long, in particular, mercilessly harassed Ramashiva, who
> > > > was a friend of mine,
> > > LOL. I wonder what your definition of “friend” is. is that like a
> > > Facebook friend?
> >
> > A friend is someone I have a friendly relationship with, be it online or
> > offline.

> Do you consider Dutch a friend?

Absolutely. If Dutch needed help I would leap to his aid, as I would for the majority of the people I have interacted with on this group, some of whom would surely surprise you.

> > > > and followed it up by calling me a "welcher" every day
> > > > for months on end over a $2 gag. Meanwhile, as he was constantly insulting
> > > > Ramashiva and me from the safety of his computer,
> > > Everyone knew who he was, and where to find him. “Safety of his
> > > computer”?
> >
> > Who wanted to "find him?" For what? Who wants to "find me?" For what?
> >
> > > That’s you, not him.
> >
> > No, it's not me at all. I don't hide behind a cloak of anonymity like you.

> You sort of do. You are hiding.

I'm hiding because I won't give my address or a list of my previous employers to a couple of weirdos on the internet? Nobody has disclosed more than I have. My name, my picture, my city, my medical issues, my wife's name, my profession, and more are all out there. If someone wanted to sue me, any lawyer in Vancouver could find me in 10 minutes, if they didn't already know me. But why the obsession over me? That's what I would like to know.

> > I am personally and legally responsible for every single thing I say, and I
> > don't say anything to or about anyone that I would hesitate for one moment to
> > say to their face.

> How the fuck can you say anything to anyone’s face? You make sure that you
> will never come face to face with anyone.

You can't read. What I said is that I don't say anything that I wouldn't say to that person's face. That is a fact. And I have played poker in public rooms all across North America. I have no idea when I might meet anyone who knows me from RGP. It doesn't concern me in the least.

> > > > he was ACTUALLY "welching"
> > > > on a $400,000 debt. Ironic, isn't it?

> Business decisions within the law are not generally considered welching. Not
> paying a bet is.

Well I never had a bet with Beldin, as we both agree. Beldin claimed we had "a contract for services rendered," so I guess I made a "business decision" not to pay Beldin $2. But anyone with half a brain knew it was all a joke. It was two fucking dollars. It was a comedy routine. Now consider someone calling me a "welcher" every day for months over $2 while they are simultaneously stiffing their lender (and ultimately the public) for a $100,000 shortfall on a mortgage. Surely you see the irony there.

> > > > So ya, I put the hammer down on him.
> > > Hammer!!!! Wow. You are one tough guy.
> >
> > > What about Susan? Beldin? And any
> > > others I’m forgetting? And don’t tell me you haven’t also tried to
> > > find
> > > every other last person here. It’s what you do, creep.
> >
> > I haven't tried to "find" anyone. For what?? More nutty fantasies about me.
> > Susan attacked me relentlessly and called me a "racist" on a near daily basis
> > for sticking up for African-Americans.

> You are a racist, but not for that reason. You think blacks are helpless, and
> need the help of everyone. Everyone but you, of course. You don’t have time
> for that.

I don't think blacks are helpless. Don't put stupid words in my mouth. I think they have collectively been put at a significant disadvantage by systemic racism for hundreds of years ( which is a matter of historical record and an indisputable fact) and I think it's high time we make it right, for EVERYONE'S good. See the difference? Of course you do. I believe in fairness and justice, which for some odd reason offends you.

> > She didn't do it one or twice. She did
> > it at least 100 times. Worse, she falsely accused me of stalking her and
> > calling her restaurant "asking about her" which is absolutely ridiculous. She
> > also lied her face off and said she knew it was me by the "country code" on
> > her call display, when there are no country codes for calls between the US
> > and Canada. That means she was deliberately libeling me in a very serious
> > way, which I do not take lightly (being someone who is not anonymous).
> >
> > I didn't do anything to Beldin except mock him and kick his ass every time he
> > dared try to argue with me.

> Didn’t you call his employer? Or threaten to? Or was that someone else?

I would never call anyone's employer in a million years over some silly internet dispute. I did *threaten* it once, when brewmaster decided it was okay to post fake, highly offensive libelous quotes with my name attached to them, using his employers server. It was just a bluff, and a bluff I knew he couldn't call. He subsequently apologized to me and all was forgiven and forgotten.

> > Everyone mocked and teased Beldin because he made
> > it a daily habit of insulting everyone on this newsgroup, all day, every day.
> > It was part of his schtick and he craved the return attention.

> Sounds a lot like you. Is he your mentor?

No.

> > I have said over and over again throughout the two decades I have posted
> > here, I will give back twice the respect anyone gives me, but if you
> > personally harass and attack me, I will defend myself, and neither you or
> > anyone else will come out on top of that exchange (as you have found out the
> > hard way). Call it a personality flaw if you want.

> I asked above if you considered Dutch a friend. Dutch has always been polite
> and respectful towards you. Yet you mocked and insulted him relentlessly more
> than once around here. So you are full of shit.

The only time I argued with Dutch is when he was on his Islamophobia kick. Yes, I get triggered by all forms of bigotry, and I take it personally. But I'm certain it went both ways. In any event, yes I do consider Dutch a friend. As I said, if he needed help I would be there for him in a heartbeat, as I would for several others here. He's a good guy, and I think I cured him of his little Islamophobia problem. He hasn't posted any fake and insulting Muslim "news" articles in years.

BillB

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 2:18:56 AM10/25/21
to
You were not right, and you can't be right, because as I already told you, your answer is internally inconsistent. Did you not understand what I meant by that?


But what is the “correct” answer? Were
> any precautions that were taken to prevent that death reasonable and
> customary? According to you, there will be NO dispute over that, because
> there will be one correct answer.

I will happily tell you the correct answer when more facts come in. When I made the post I said "based on what we know now," but there have been some surprising developments, so I'd just as soon wait a bit. But I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. What I won't do when I give my opinion is try to hedge like you did. Your hedging made your prediction flat out wrong. If he followed all the usual procedures and wasn't doing anything patently stupid with the gun (like spinning it on his finger like an Old West gunslinger or something like that), there is almost no way he will be charged with any homicide offense because he's not guilty of that, and if he was somehow charged he would be acquitted. There is no mens rea, recklessness, or misfeasance on his part. He has every right to reasonably expect the gun to be safe if he is led to believe that it was independently inspected by two firearms experts immediately before it was handed to him. The criminal negligence occurred before he was handed the gun and assured it was safe. Those are the people in real legal jeopardy.

The production company is obviously going to be liable civilly under master/servant law for the whole incident. It's a textbook res ipsa loquitur case. In other words, the outcome implies employee negligence any way you slice it.

That's my take on it so far, but it is subject to change.

BillB

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 4:23:34 AM10/25/21
to
On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:18:56 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:


> I will happily tell you the correct answer when more facts come in. When I made the post I said "based on what we know now," but there have been some surprising developments, so I'd just as soon wait a bit. But I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. What I won't do when I give my opinion is try to hedge like you did. Your hedging made your prediction flat out wrong. If he followed all the usual procedures and wasn't doing anything patently stupid with the gun (like spinning it on his finger like an Old West gunslinger or something like that), there is almost no way he will be charged with any homicide offense because he's not guilty of that, and if he was somehow charged he would be acquitted. There is no mens rea, recklessness, or misfeasance on his part. He has every right to reasonably expect the gun to be safe if he is led to believe that it was independently inspected by two firearms experts immediately before it was handed to him. The criminal negligence occurred before he was handed the gun and assured it was safe. Those are the people in real legal jeopardy.
>
> The production company is obviously going to be liable civilly under master/servant law for the whole incident. It's a textbook res ipsa loquitur case. In other words, the outcome implies employee negligence any way you slice it.
>
> That's my take on it so far, but it is subject to change.

One thing that could muddy the waters on the civil side is if some of the people involved were contractors rather than employees. That I would have to research a bit to unravel. Also, I think I heard that Baldwin was also a producer, and there is a possibility the producers could have criminal liability for recklessness or misfeasance, depending on the circs. My previous comments were only an assessment of Baldwin's criminal liability for his handling of the firearm.











Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 2:37:39 PM10/25/21
to
On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<3b3dc298-f634-4ff8...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 11:18:56 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
> > I will happily tell you the correct answer when more facts come in. When I
> > made the post I said "based on what we know now," but there have been some
> > surprising developments, so I'd just as soon wait a bit. But I have a
> > pretty good idea of what's going to happen. What I won't do when I give my
> > opinion is try to hedge like you did. Your hedging made your prediction
> > flat out wrong. If he followed all the usual procedures and wasn't doing
> > anything patently stupid with the gun (like spinning it on his finger like
> > an Old West gunslinger or something like that), there is almost no way he
> > will be charged with any homicide offense because he's not guilty of that,
> > and if he was somehow charged he would be acquitted. There is no mens rea,
> > recklessness, or misfeasance on his part. He has every right to reasonably
> > expect the gun to be safe if he is led to believe that it was independently
> > inspected by two firearms experts immediately before it was handed to him.
> > The criminal negligence occurred before he was handed the gun and assured
> > it was safe. Those are the people in real legal jeopardy.
> >
> > The production company is obviously going to be liable civilly under
> > master/servant law for the whole incident. It's a textbook res ipsa
> > loquitur case. In other words, the outcome implies employee negligence any
> > way you slice it.
> >
> > That's my take on it so far, but it is subject to change.
>
> One thing that could muddy the waters on the civil side is if some of the
> people involved were contractors rather than employees.

Another thing that you are overlooking is that workers comp comes into play,
and could eliminate some civil suits.

> That I would have to
> research a bit to unravel. Also, I think I heard that Baldwin was also a
> producer, and there is a possibility the producers could have criminal
> liability for recklessness or misfeasance, depending on the circs.

Which I already said.

> My
> previous comments were only an assessment of Baldwin's criminal liability for
> his handling of the firearm.

Which was criminal. He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. He
did not personally check the weapon for safety. As a producer he should have
been aware of the reported rampant negligence on that set, and done something
about it.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 2:43:28 PM10/25/21
to
On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<4fb57830-0058-4d79...@googlegroups.com>):
Nope.

> But what is the “correct” answer? Were
> > any precautions that were taken to prevent that death reasonable and
> > customary? According to you, there will be NO dispute over that, because
> > there will be one correct answer.
>
> I will happily tell you the correct answer when more facts come in. When I
> made the post I said "based on what we know now," but there have been some
> surprising developments, so I'd just as soon wait a bit. But I have a pretty
> good idea of what's going to happen. What I won't do when I give my opinion
> is try to hedge like you did.

Of course not - you know the “correct" outcome.

> Your hedging made your prediction flat out
> wrong. If he followed all the usual procedures and wasn't doing anything
> patently stupid with the gun (like spinning it on his finger like an Old West
> gunslinger or something like that),

He was practicing drawing the weapon while it was loaded. Another reason he
should have checked it himself. If you are pointing the gun in the direction
of humans, *you* are responsible for the safety of that weapon.

> there is almost no way he will be charged
> with any homicide offense because he's not guilty of that, and if he was
> somehow charged he would be acquitted. There is no mens rea, recklessness, or
> misfeasance on his part. He has every right to reasonably expect the gun to
> be safe if he is led to believe that it was independently inspected by two
> firearms experts immediately before it was handed to him.

He had no reason to believe that, based on more reporting.

> The criminal
> negligence occurred before he was handed the gun and assured it was safe.
> Those are the people in real legal jeopardy.

Which I already said in my first reply. It’s good that you can learn from
me.

> The production company is obviously going to be liable civilly under
> master/servant law for the whole incident. It's a textbook res ipsa loquitur
> case. In other words, the outcome implies employee negligence any way you
> slice it.

If it’s employer/employee, it’s workers comp. liability goes out the
window.
>
>
> That's my take on it so far, but it is subject to change.

Keep reading my posts. You’ll learn.

BillB

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 5:47:57 PM10/25/21
to
I'll (try to) explain it to you later. I am a little short on patience at the moment.

> > But what is the “correct” answer? Were
> > > any precautions that were taken to prevent that death reasonable and
> > > customary? According to you, there will be NO dispute over that, because
> > > there will be one correct answer.
> >
> > I will happily tell you the correct answer when more facts come in. When I
> > made the post I said "based on what we know now," but there have been some
> > surprising developments, so I'd just as soon wait a bit. But I have a pretty
> > good idea of what's going to happen. What I won't do when I give my opinion
> > is try to hedge like you did.

> Of course not - you know the “correct" outcome.

Based on the facts as we understood them at the time I made that comment, yes.

> > Your hedging made your prediction flat out
> > wrong. If he followed all the usual procedures and wasn't doing anything
> > patently stupid with the gun (like spinning it on his finger like an Old West
> > gunslinger or something like that),

> He was practicing drawing the weapon while it was loaded. Another reason he
> should have checked it himself. If you are pointing the gun in the direction
> of humans, *you* are responsible for the safety of that weapon.

Not necessarily. Certainly not necessarily in the criminal sphere.


> > there is almost no way he will be charged
> > with any homicide offense because he's not guilty of that, and if he was
> > somehow charged he would be acquitted. There is no mens rea, recklessness, or
> > misfeasance on his part. He has every right to reasonably expect the gun to
> > be safe if he is led to believe that it was independently inspected by two
> > firearms experts immediately before it was handed to him.

> He had no reason to believe that, based on more reporting.

My information was that he did have a reason to believe that.

> > The criminal
> > negligence occurred before he was handed the gun and assured it was safe.
> > Those are the people in real legal jeopardy.

> Which I already said in my first reply. It’s good that you can learn from
> me.

I didn't learn anything from you, but if you said that you are entitled to a BillB reward cookie.

> > The production company is obviously going to be liable civilly under
> > master/servant law for the whole incident. It's a textbook res ipsa loquitur
> > case. In other words, the outcome implies employee negligence any way you
> > slice it.

> If it’s employer/employee, it’s workers comp. liability goes out the
> window.

Not true.

> >
> >
> > That's my take on it so far, but it is subject to change.

> Keep reading my posts. You’ll learn.

I'll be sure to tell you and thank you if you say something correct that I didn't already know. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 6:41:15 PM10/25/21
to
On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<0891c988-b8ee-49a2...@googlegroups.com>):
Oh, sorry, Tim. Now tell me that anyone can sue anyone for anything at any
time, because that’s what whatever you say will boil down to. Of course
there are always exceptions to be dredged up, but you know that I am right,
or you are stupid.


BillB

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 7:43:37 PM10/25/21
to
As I said, you aren't willing to learn. You only want to argue from your perch of blissful ignorance.

Bill Vanek

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 9:26:15 PM10/25/21
to
On Oct 25, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<7fe946d5-1481-42d0...@googlegroups.com>):
One of the more important differences between all the lawyers I knew and you,
is that they were actual practicing layers, and they practiced here in the
US, not Canada. I would choose to learn from them. Wouldn’t anyone?

BillB

unread,
Oct 25, 2021, 9:31:26 PM10/25/21
to
And one of the differences between lawyers in Canada and lawyers in the US is that we don't have 4th tier law schools that would even accept a moron like you.
0 new messages