What's in the News 3.0

[Beorning]

I have an honest question: why is Baldwin the one being charged? Didn't he just pull the trigger of a gun that was handed to him? Shouldn't a prop coordinator or someone similar be the one charged?

[Oniya]

The armorer's trial is scheduled to start next month.

[GloomCookie]

I have an honest question: why is Baldwin the one being charged? Didn't he just pull the trigger of a gun that was handed to him? Shouldn't a prop coordinator or someone similar be the one charged?

I think he's partially to blame because he actually pulled the trigger. While it seems silly, the responsibility is partially on him because he himself didn't check the weapon. He was the one handling the equipment and though responsibility for maintaining and preparing the equipment wasn't his, he is still the operator. It's similar to if a pilot gets into a plane certified by the flight crew and doesn't do his preflight checklist, and the plane crashes. Ultimately, it's the operator who is responsible for the vehicle or equipment.

[Oniya]

When the original charges against Baldwin were dropped in April, the court did not absolve him.  In October, the prosecution was looking at new evidence, and - as a result of witness testimony before a grand jury, have opted to file new felony charges.  There are also several civil suits making their way through the courts.

[Missy]

I honestly don't think he should be found guilty personslly, though I can't say I've reviewed the evidence on the whole either. I do agree with the procedure being followed unto it's conclusion as a formality however, even if it can be arduous for those involved. It is ultimately important to form a definition of whats expected of other persons in similar situations in the future.

On that note though, I kind of wonder what kind of training are actors given in these types of situations? I mean what level of responsibility should a studio bear for making the decision to use real guns capable of firing real bullets?

[greenknight]

I think he's partially to blame because he actually pulled the trigger. While it seems silly, the responsibility is partially on him because he himself didn't check the weapon. He was the one handling the equipment and though responsibility for maintaining and preparing the equipment wasn't his, he is still the operator. It's similar to if a pilot gets into a plane certified by the flight crew and doesn't do his preflight checklist, and the plane crashes. Ultimately, it's the operator who is responsible for the vehicle or equipment.

When this happened, there was a point made that he absolutely should not have done anything to check the gun as, consistent with industry best practices, it was a fireable offense. In the aftermath of onset deaths due to firearms mishandling, notably Jon-Erik Hexum and Brandon Lee, the industry standard was actors don't do anything except exactly what the armorers tell them to do. Whether that's true and whether industry standards survive judicial review is now to be seen. Does an industry standard absolve one following the standard of negligence?

On the civil side, burn the company down. They allowed an unsafe workplace to exist and it cost an employee their life. And the armorer crew, too, both the boss who didn't provide oversight and enforce standards and the jackasses who chose not to follow those standards.

[Missy]

On the civil side, burn the company down. They allowed an unsafe workplace to exist and it cost an employee their life. And the armorer crew, too, both the boss who didn't provide oversight and enforce standards and the jackasses who chose not to follow those standards.

I can kind of agree with this, my bias against corps notwishstanding.

[Al Terego]

I think he's partially to blame because he actually pulled the trigger. While it seems silly, the responsibility is partially on him because he himself didn't check the weapon. He was the one handling the equipment and though responsibility for maintaining and preparing the equipment wasn't his, he is still the operator.

A personal anecdote:

When Irene and I were a young couple, another couple came to visit.  Both the guy and myself had concealed carry permits at the time, and while I mostly kept my handgun locked, he used to carry it on his person.

He had told me that he just bought a new handgun and I asked if I could see it.  He took it out of the holster, removed the magazine, racked the slide twice and passed it to me.  I racked the slide twice, inspected it, racked the slide twice again and returned it to him.  He proceeded to racked the slide twice and put it in back in the holster.

By that time, the girls were looking at us like we're crazy.  It took me a moment to realize why, and then I laughed and explained that it had been drilled into us so many times that whenever we receive or hand out a weapon we must check and ensure that it is not loaded -- no exceptions -- that it has become automatic, which I suppose was the intent.

When this happened, there was a point made that he absolutely should not have done anything to check the gun as, consistent with industry best practices, it was a fireable offense. In the aftermath of onset deaths due to firearms mishandling, notably Jon-Erik Hexum and Brandon Lee, the industry standard was actors don't do anything except exactly what the armorers tell them to do. Whether that's true and whether industry standards survive judicial review is now to be seen. Does an industry standard absolve one following the standard of negligence?

Hindsight is 20/20 but he could have insisted that the armorers check the gun in front of him.  Then again I don't know the full facts of the case and I assume he did not receive adequate weapon training.  Also, a cursory Wikipedia reading of "involuntary manslaughter" does not seem to adequately cover this case, though prosecutors don't usually bring charges unless they believe that there is a good chance of either getting a conviction or negotiating a guilty plea to a lesser charge.

[Keelan]

So, who remembers the 'Freedom Convoy' that Canada had to deal with some time back?

Apparently there was a court case about it from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation where per the Judge on the case:

"I have concluded that the decision to issue the proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness - justification, transparency and intelligibility - and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68038172

[Norwegian One]

https://www.reuters.com/world/this-is-moment-israeli-commandos-disguised-palestinians-walked-into-jenin-2024-01-30/

Israeli special forces raid a hospital in disguises, killing three people.

With everything from raiding the neutral grounds of a hospital, to disguising themselves as medical personnel, this seems to me like a pretty clear war crime. Thoughts?

[Al Terego]

Thoughts?

There is a thread for the Israel-Hamas war here.
Given the nature of the discussions that the subject attracts, I would very much appreciate it not spreading to other threads.
If you are interested in my personal take on the subject, you are welcome to PM me.

[Norwegian One]

Ah, my bad. Didn't know about that thread. Thanks for the heads up :)

[Oniya]

Not everything should be connected to the Internet.

Short version:  Hackers managed to infect the software in smart toothbrushes to start a DDoS attack against a Swiss company. 

Smart toothbrushes, y'all.

[Beorning]

These two pieces of news from America caught my eye yesterday evening:

Mother of a school shooter gets jail time

Woman stabs her boyfriend to death, gets community service

The first one is interesting. It does seem a good verdict, as it seems the shooter's parents really chose to ignore all of the red flags. Damn, that kid practically begged them to help him...

The other one is... mind-blowing. Since when is intoxication a valid defense? Only last year, I was following the trial of Taylor Schabusiness, who murdered and dissected her boyfriend. She got life, even though she also was high as kite during the deed. But this woman gets... a slap on the wrist? Due to "bad marijuana"? Huh.

Oh, and the third bit of news: Tucker Carlson will be doing an interview with Putin. Words fail me.

[greenknight]

The defense of involuntary intoxication is a legitimate defense and her self-inflicted wounds probably sold it.

As for the mother's case, I have so many frustrations after I've read local reporting and the components of the crime under Michigan's code. This is going to be a  drawn out affair and is absolutely going to provide strong basis for the son's appeals process, regardless of how the mother's appeal turns out.

[Keelan]

The defense of involuntary intoxication is a legitimate defense and her self-inflicted wounds probably sold it.

https://www.calcriminaldefenselawyers.com/intoxication-defense-in-criminal-ca#:~:text=If%20a%20defendant%20involuntarily%20ingests,3427).

Involuntary Intoxication

If a defendant involuntarily ingests an intoxicating drug or liquor, and thereafter commits a crime, then the defendant is entitled to an acquittal of the criminal charges if he or she can prove that the crime was committed as a result of the effects of the intoxicating drug or liquor (CalCrim No. 3427).

Involuntary means that the defendant did not know that he or she was ingesting a drug or liquor, or that the defendant was physically forced, or threatened with harm to ingest the intoxicating drug or liquor.

The effects of the intoxicating drug or liquor must be severe in order for the defense of involuntary intoxication to apply. Essentially, the intoxicating effect must render the defendant with the inability to understand the nature or quality of the act that he or she is committing, or render the defendant with the inability to understand the difference between right and wrong (similar to the defense of insanity).

The defense of involuntary intoxication cannot be used if the defendant knew that he or she was ingesting an illegal drug or liquor, even if the defendant underestimated the effects of the illegal drug or liquor. Also, the defense of involuntary intoxication does not apply when the defendant knew that he or she was taking an intoxicating liquor or drug but did not know that the intoxicating liquor or drug was different than what the defendant believed he or she ingested.

Note: Chronic intoxication (alcoholism) is not considered involuntary intoxication.

Seeing as nobody coerced her into smoking, nor did she not know she would be smoking, AND she knew damn well she was going to be smoking and did so voluntarily, I vehemently disagree.

There was nothing involuntary about her becoming intoxicated; she underestimated/could not expect the effect.

That said...

Voluntary Intoxication

When the defendant voluntarily ingests an intoxicating drug or liquor (or both), and thereafter commits a specific intent crime, the defendant might be entitled to either an acquittal of the crime, or a reduction of the crime if he or she can prove that the intoxicants rendered him or her with the inability to form the mental state of mind called specific intent. Whether or not a successful argument of voluntary intoxication nullifies criminal liability, or reduces the criminal charges, depends on the particular crime alleged (Cal Crim No. 3426)

For example, if the defendant successfully argues that he could not form the specific intent to commit the crime receiving stolen property as a result of voluntary intoxication, then the defendant is entitled to an acquittal of the criminal charges. On the other hand, if the defendant successfully argues that he could not form the specific intent to kill another person without legal justification (murder), then the defendant might have the murder charges reduced to manslaughter charges.

Specific Intent: Specific intent means to intentionally or knowingly engage in conduct so as to cause a particular outcome. For example, the crime of assault is a specific intent crime because to commit the crime of assault means to specifically intend to cause another person to fear an imminent harm. Common specific intents crimes subject to a possible voluntary intoxication defense include: Theft, embezzlement, murder, robbery, lewd acts on a minor, burglary, carjacking, check fraud, criminal threats, prostitution, oral copulation, welfare fraud, elder theft, indecent exposure, perjury, murder in the first degree (intent to kill), and more.

Note: There are several different mental states in the criminal law, including negligence, recklessness, willingness, etc., but specific intent means that the defendant meant or intended to commit the illegal conduct.

THAT is what happened, and in fact she was charged with manslaughter.

That said, community service and parole is *not* what I would consider the appropriate punishment for someone's life resulting from a violent offensive action.

[greenknight]

Seeing as nobody coerced her into smoking,

That is exactly what her attorneys argued

[LostInTheMist]

So it looks like the Justices are going to ignore T****'s actions and rule that his name must be included on the ballot in all states (where he registered at least). The verdict has not come down yet, but when it does, it's likely that a large part of it will be that one state should not be able to set national policy. If Colorado took T**** off the ballot and that were permitted, it would be allowed anywhere in the nation, and that could be used to make it virtually impossible or literally impossible for T**** to win an election, depending on where he was removed from the ballot.

The part they're ignoring is that T**** incited an insurrection, which under article 3 of the 14th Amendment, should make him ineligible to hold public office again. And January 6 was an insurrection in T****'s own words.

[GloomCookie]

Until he is brought up on charges and officially arrested, Trump is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. You may not like the situation, but our legal system still has to treat him as if he's a normal citizen.

[Regina Minx]

Until he is brought up on charges and officially arrested, Trump is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. You may not like the situation, but our legal system still has to treat him as if he's a normal citizen.

That was among the issues that were discussed. The Senators who wrote the language of the 14th Amendment were adamant that you did not have to be convicted of any crimes in order to be disqualified under that amendment. The language states that anyone who "engages in insurrection against the Constitution." Not "is convicted of."

Before Donald Trump, 8 people who were principally involved in the Confederacy in the 1860s were adjudicated to be disqualified for office. Five of them were never accused of or convicted of any crime. One person was convicted of trespass only, a far crime from any insurrection-style crime, and only one person on the list was convicted of crimes under the Espionage Act. (The data is lacking to determine if the 8th person on the list was convicted of a crime).

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

[Regina Minx]

That was among the issues that were discussed. The Senators who wrote the language of the 14th Amendment were adamant that you did not have to be convicted of any crimes in order to be disqualified under that amendment. The language states that anyone who "engages in insurrection against the Constitution." Not "is convicted of."

Before Donald Trump, 8 people who were principally involved in the Confederacy in the 1860s were adjudicated to be disqualified for office. Five of them were never accused of or convicted of any crime. One person was convicted of trespass only, a far crime from any insurrection-style crime, and only one person on the list was convicted of crimes under the Espionage Act. (The data is lacking to determine if the 8th person on the list was convicted of a crime).

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Forgive me. I meant to write 'mostly' instead of 'principally' in my last paragraph.

[Oniya]

There are two 'semantics' issues that are driving most of the actual frustration in this situation.  The first is the hesitancy to label January 6 as an 'insurrection' - until the Colorado judge finally had the temerity to call a spade a fucking spade, and not a 'soil distribution implement'. 

The other is the hesitancy to call the President of the United States an 'officer' - as if someone who had taken part in an insurrection should be able to become the President, but not some lower official.

These are both separate from the individual in question - or should be, if the Constitution is intended to apply to everyone.

[Oniya]

Never talk to Russia about historical borders.  Unless, you are the Mongols.

(humorous)  (#CrashCourse)

[Beorning]

Nice! :)

If I may ask: what was the reception of Carlson's Putin interview over at the US?

[Chulanowa]

Never talk to Russia about historical borders.  Unless, you are the Mongols.

(humorous)  (#CrashCourse)

You laugh, but I see this as at least a somewhat reasonable solution to the conflict. Return Russia and Ukraine both to the Tatar Yoke. They're rightful Ulug Ulus clay!

If I may ask: what was the reception of Carlson's Putin interview over at the US?

Largely indifference. Of course some media / tweetheads had absolute meltdowns over it, since some of them beleive journalism is just being a State Department Stenographer. But mostly, no one really cared. Tucker's a munchkin, Putin didn't say anything new, and the best outcome of the whole affair are the memes.



Tucker's gormless face always makes me giggle. Looks like a dog trying to do math.