287
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 129 points 4 months ago

Looks like he...

🕶️

Dodged a bullet...

[-] slingstone@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

Queue loud song by The Who...

[-] Retreaux@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 41 points 4 months ago

Now I'm very curious. It looks like the question revolves around how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved?

Did cops try to frame a guilty man?

Is Alec Baldwin the new OJ?

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 113 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The prosecution brought an envelope of bullets into the courtroom but had never notified the defense they had them. That would be a BIG fucking 'nope' in any court case.

Archive source

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 57 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's so fucking stupid it makes me question whether they intentionally tanked the case. This aspect of evidence disclosure is literally covered in My Cousin Vinny: https://youtu.be/uaoymfY9Kw0

[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Now I’m very curious. It looks like the question revolves around how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved?

Were you not 'very curious' enough to actually look at literally any of the real and active reporting on this before your comment?

There was no question as to 'how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved' and it is a core fact among the details of why case was dismissed.

They even played the officer's bodycam footage of an early formal interview of the former officer that brought the bullets in as evidence (that the officer on the stand pitifully tried to pretend wasn't an interview) in which the prosecutor was present. The evidence was intentionally filed under another case number so it wouldn't be associated with Baldwin's case (or the Reed case that I believe was ongoing when it was actually brought in). And THEN, cherry on top, they also discovered while looking at the undisclosed bullet evidence in this court, despite the prosecutors claims that the bullets were not associated with the Rust set thus not counted as evidence, that there were matching bullets of the type that were on the Rust set.

Some link to this as the moment the case fully unraveled: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=28995s

Where the prosecutor has put herself on the stand and opened herself up to answering defense questions under oath: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=32578s

It's among the craziest prosecutorial malfeasance shit I've ever seen from a high profile, video recorded court proceeding. One prosecutor resigned and LEFT earlier in the day as things were unraveling, and then the prosecutor that was still there put herself on the stand as-a-prosecution-witness to give testimony about the bullets, which even allowed the defense to question her about witness statements that she called Baldwin a cocksucker, about witness statements that she called Baldwin an arrogant prick, and about witness statements that she would 'teach him a lesson'. In the context of a lawyer, putting oneself on the witness stand as a lawyer in the case, even as a prosecutor, is mental breakdown levels of personal desperation, even if they want to claim it was an attempt to preserve an appeal of the dismissal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 4 months ago

Glad he got off. I always thought it was bullshit that anyone would try to hold him accountable. The weapons expert, yes. The actor who was told the prop was safe, hell no.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes and no. The circumstances surrounding the death were… Not great. Evidence of Baldwin playing with the weapon, pretending to fire it, aiming it at cast and crew, etc… Plus there’s the whole “they were filming during a strike, and Baldwin (who was also the executive producer) went out of his way to hire an unqualified scab as a weapons master” part of things too.

[-] drislands@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

The armouror was a scab? That's the first I'm hearing of that. Do you have a link?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

There were no details, what evidence was withheld?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sunzu@kbin.run 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Amazing how they handled their case properly for the wage slave and got a conviction too...

While here they mishandled the case for a rich parasite?

How does this always happen haha

Clown world

[-] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 21 points 4 months ago

If they wanted to let a rich person walk free they could have simply refused to prosecute

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

In the article it mentions how the evidence came to light after her conviction. I don't know if that means her appeal changes because of this, but it seems to me like this evidence only affected Baldwin's case and how the prosecution handled it.

Expensive lawyers are better about using slip ups to get their clients free, but that doesn't mean that the only difference between the two was money.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
287 points (97.7% liked)

News

23301 readers
2604 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS