Worse, there is still no Justice to veteran who was shot to death

​@@lalajun5902 Unarmed female veteran at that.

@@chromicm6686 Being female is irrelevant to justice

Yes , the world is totally , up , side , down ! I feel Ike a third class passenger, on the titanic , right after , it’s hit the iceberg ! But that’s cool as I know beyond a shadow , of a , doubt just where , I’m going , as I hit the cold water !

@@lalajun5902 Pretty sure her getting shot to death was justice. She was breaking into a government building. She got what she wanted.

This...

lol implying GOP donors like Friend of Epstein Donald Trump get nothing

You nailed it.

Until things go bad enough and a thing called Mob Rule becomes the Law, Enforcer, Judge and Executioner..... Funny how we may need some good Classic French to get Justice back on track

Calling Baldwin “elite” is a little generous he’s just rich prick lol

In this case, they were pushing a statute inappropriately. So this is actual justice.

@@nunya3163 The OP and your comment are both true.

Their time is coming. People are waking up. When it comes they will be helpless.

It’s just the legal system, no justice is required for it to function

Please don't capitalize justice system. It does not deserve that much reverence.

​@@Cloudaddy220 justice caint work only if it works for the gestopo.

Yep

"What are you in for?" "This bitch was pissing me off so I shot her dead." "Oh, so you're in for the long haul huh?" "Nah, I get out in six months."

So brandishing in regards to that specific statue, many laws have a definitions section that define specific terms used in the law. for the purpose of the law itself. That definition wouldnt necessarily apply to any use of the word

Thats literally what brandishing is. Pulling flashing a gun to intimidate. From not a lawyer but has always been my understanding. Its weird though that nothing harsher applies. Not sure how some sort of negligence doesn’t apply.

The issue is new Mexico fucked up and had the requirement to brandish first for only 11 months. He just happened to have done that in the tine frame

Only relevant to New Mexico.

He was practicing a scene, right? In the context of the scene, his intent was to harm or intimidate. It would have been funny if that had counted

A normal person would have a free lawyer who wants a plea deal on day 1 so they can get to their next 300 court appearances. This is the benefit of being able to pay for a lawyer in the Justice system. You have access to it, too. You just need money.

I’m Ready IM Ready IM READY! ARE YOU READY SQUIDWARD!

thats for him , not you or i

@@angelikac6767 capitalize that Him and you right.

@@MajikalCowpoke God doesn't exist.

@@TheIncognitusMe can you prove that.

Why would he, if he does it this way, he walks and admits nothing.

They dont have enough to really hold him down, the facts of the case just don't lead to anything but a horrific accident

But they do get away with all kinds of stuff all the time.

​​@@wierdtromebonekid he pointed a gun at someone and intentionally pulled the trigger. Do you honestly think if it were me or you they wouldnt bury us under the jail?

@@MattH-wg7ou sadly robert is correct with out that other charge it is 5k a fine and 18 months in jail which i am going to guess he will not see any jail time

@@MattH-wg7ou he pulled the trigger of a gun for an acting scene assuming it was empty or loaded with a blank, in a situation where live ammo should not have even been there

I do not think any american party can be trusted at all

That is the problem. This is a shooting case, and should not be politized by who does and does not like Alec Baldwins politics , and parody of Trump.

lel Voting Doesn't Work

I'm kinda interested in your argument. What would be different if this happened in a Republican/right-leaning place?

​@Colin Archer not when you, the citizen, just bend over and take it when you know you're being screwed.

Justice only exists when Republicans are in office.

Seriously. 100%

✡✡🐀🐀

Lol as you say from a screen. 😂😂😂

Who is AM?

No, what happened is a new law as implemented after Baldwin killed a woman but before he was charged and technically he doesn't fall into the new law because the crime was committed prior to its creation. He technically can not be charged with this law because at the time it didn't exist. Its a stupid grandfather clause basically

The law changed. Nick is uneducated on this one.

@@jwatson181 agreed. Very clear what the purpose of this enhancement law was supposed to achieve, and Baldwin’s case doesn’t fit at all. That said, I still hope they throw the book at him for whatever else they can.

@@RichardPalmbergDDS Baldwins case actually does fit it 100% and in normal circumstances he wouldn't be able to shake it... HOWEVER the law was created AFTER he had been charged

@@NameIsDoc I'd argue that the first definition still fits the situation 100%. He was brandishing the firearm, he was attempting to intimidate. Its just the context makes it understandable, seeing as it was supposed to be a scene in a movie.

@Richard Palmberg, DDS It's actually that the law wasn't in effect when it happened. It would be unconstitutional for them to charge him for a law not on the books.

Stop LARPing loser.

This is why i don't mind if people break laws. Go ahead. The system is broken so there's no point in following it.

There is a 0.1% chance he will still going to jail for up to 18 months just saying

Yeup

Why would that matter? it was a "negligent" discharge from the pistol that caused the fatality and injury anyway.

@@chromicm6686 I did not put my question in relation to the case. It was a general question about the wording of the statute.

The enhancement likely would have gotten him off of that charge, because it wasn't in place at the time of the shooting. Yes, even for conservatives -- this is basic "if it wasn't illegal when you did it, you can't put someone in jail for it after making it illegal." It's just an indicator of how insanely incompetent prosecutors are down here in NM. They do this shit all the time, and people constantly get off because of it.

I think this one's more about class than political leaning. Or in other words, money. You or I could never afford the kind of lawyer to find this kind of fuckup and get it dropped. All our rights and laws work for those who have the money to pay lawyers at the end of the day. Sure, politics and biased judges are a thing for sure, but in this case I don't think the judge had any other option. You can't prosecute under a law that didn't exist at the time of the crime I think. There's this true story about a girl who got abducted and let's phrase it as a euphemism... she has iron hands now. The man who did it got away with an almost meaningless punishment. They made a new law because of what he did but they couldn't retroactively apply it to him. He got out of prison eventually and took the life of somebody else. Not sure what the solution is. Maybe the whole concept of a firm and consistent law is the problem to begin with. You end up with absolutely ridiculous injustices based on nothing but trying to force hard almost mathematical logic onto real life.

@@giusepperana6354 Yea I'm sure that's a big part of it too.

He was charged under two different statutes. 1. The reckless homicide statute which in NM has a 18-month maximum sentence 2. Homicide during commission of a lawful act with a gun enhancement which carried a mandatory 5-year sentence. The enhancement statute in effect at the time of the shooting did not cover his conduct, so had to be dropped. He is still charged with reckless homicide, but NM has an abnormally low maximum sentence when compared to other states. For instance, Ofc. Potter was convicted of basically the same offense in Minnesota and her sentence was at the low end of the sentencing range rather than near the statutory maximum and she was sentenced to about 1 year. She could have been sentenced to something like 12 years at the max.