• FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Unless the judge has some knowledge that Baldwin either had intent, or was negligent in such a way as to contribute to the death,

    Trials are the thing we do that allow juries/judges to come to those conclusions.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Typically, there needs to be enough evidence for an indictment to stand trial. So far, there hasn’t been publicly released enough evidence to show that he was in anyway at fault.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          I know, but I think that indictment should have been thrown out after the firearms coordinator was convicted. This seems heavy-handed and unfair.

          • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well that’s not the argument you were making. He’s regrettably met the minimum standards for it to go to a proper court, though.

            I don’t think it’s heavy-handed to think an incident can have multiple parties responsible. It’s very possibly that. I think a jury should determine if Baldwin legally should’ve done better, using evidence and witness testimony about what would normally happen.

            Personally I think it’s much more the armorer’s fault. I agree with you. But I wasn’t there, I don’t know that we have all the information, or even that the information I’ve learned is completely accurate. A trial is the way to get all the information and certify it as true under penalty of perjury. Then the people who have been given every fact from both sides can make that determination.

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Well that’s not the argument you were making.

              it kinda is, although it would be fair to say i was being circumspect.

              I don’t think it’s heavy-handed to think an incident can have multiple parties responsible. It’s very possibly that. I think a jury should determine if Baldwin legally should’ve done better, using evidence and witness testimony about what would normally happen.

              i agree that multiple parties can be responsible for a thing, but i really feel these questions should have been adequately answered (and have) during the investigations. unless there’s a pile of evidence that hasn’t been made public (which is possible, i admit), then this all seems like so much theater.

              you raise good points though, and i realize that we’re debating opinions here, not strictly the facts, so i’m not really trying to convince you of anything-- just to express my position.