Prosecutor opposes 'Rust' armorer's request for release as she seeks new trial for set shooting

Has there ever been a rationale stated by the murderer why he pointed a weapon at someone NOT in the movie (much less while not filming) and pulled the trigger ?

Yes, there has. It’s common knowledge about the event.

It is incorrect to call Baldwin a murderer because he was never charged with murder nor found guilty of it. Involuntary manslaughter is a very different crime.

That so-called armorer is a clown who should never be let anywhere near a firearm again.

Mr Majestic gets off scott free, while she’s in jail.

A prosecution would have been justice, either to convict or exonerate him. Now it will never be known.

This is why prosecutors MUST follow the rules of the law. The prosecutor who stifled evidence should never be allowed to prosecute again; her actions denied justice for everyone.

Technically, a gun with fake bullets can be argued also as not a weapon designed specifically to kill

Sorry, I'll add that what you are doing there is using a gun in a way that removes its proper function in order to make the argument that it's not designed for that function. It's a flawed argument. Like saying a car with no wheels is not a car.

It could be a mistake - picked up a wrong jug, for instance. Some acid solutions are odorless, colorless, and indistinguishable from water

Not one I made, so not my fault.

Technically, a gun with fake bullets can be argued also as not a weapon designed specifically to kill

No, it can't. A gun is most definitely a weapon designed specifically to kill, and if someone hands one to you, you sure as hell check for yourself what it's loaded with. A water pistol, not so much.

filling it with acid and telling me it's water is a deliberate act

It could be a mistake - picked up a wrong jug, for instance. Some acid solutions are odorless, colorless, and indistinguishable from water

remember, it's not a weapon designed specifically to kill

Technically, a gun with fake bullets can be argued also as not a weapon designed specifically to kill

What do you think?

Just something to think about

lostrune2,

I'll start by saying that your hypothetical is pretty ridiculous, but I appreciate the thought experiment. A water gun is completely different from an actual firearm (even if I was taking a shooting course, and my firearms instructor handed me a firearm saying it was unloaded, I would still check it myself), filling it with acid and telling me it's water is a deliberate act, not a negligent one which would further exonerate me, and I can't think of a single professional situation in which there is a person hired with the specific task of giving out water guns; maybe at a kids' party or something.

Now, to your question: Yeah, it changes a little. I would trust that the professional handing me a water pistol (remember, it's not a weapon designed specifically to kill) was acting in good faith, had already been vetted in some way, and I wouldn't be so concerned about potentially deadly consequences to pulling that trigger.

What do you think?

It's 50%. You shouldn't have given me a water gun filled with acid and told me it's water. I should have checked for myself that it was, in fact, water. How did I do?

Actually, that's pretty good. Ok, what if we add that it's my professional job to give you a water gun filled with water (I mean, it's not like a doctor giving you a medicine pill to swallow, but it's still a professional job). Does that change anything?

Depends. If I gave ya a water gun and told ya it's a water gun, and ya pulled the trigger at someone thinking it's a water gun, but it actually has acid in it - how much is it your fault?

It's 50%. You shouldn't have given me a water gun filled with acid and told me it's water. I should have checked for myself that it was, in fact, water. How did I do?

(And no verdict of guilt or innocence was given in Baldwin's case. It was thrown out because of the prosecution's mishandling of evidence)

So SHE didn’t pull the trigger, although it was HER JOB to prepare the “Prop”…and Mr Majestic gets off scott free, while she’s in jail.

Depends. If I gave ya a water gun and told ya it's a water gun, and ya pulled the trigger at someone thinking it's a water gun, but it actually has acid in it - how much is it your fault?

I think they both have criminal liability in regard to their wanton negligence.

That said, the prosecution really did a horrible job in discovery and the Judge rightly threw out the case (ALEC should thank his lucky stars).

That would seem to imply that the same prosecution misconduct could be present in this conviction as well and she should at minimum have her appeal heard on an expedited basis.

So SHE didn’t pull the trigger, although it was HER JOB to prepare the “Prop”…and Mr Majestic gets off scott free, while she’s in jail.

Has there ever been a rationale stated by the murderer why he pointed a weapon at someone NOT in the movie (much less while not filming) and pulled the trigger ?