Alec Baldwin

[Iwannaplato]

Exactly. My point is clearly aimed at her.

I suppose this is as close to an apology I'll get.

Clear?
viewtopic.php?p=620783#p620783
Nah.

[iambiguous]

ME

That was exactly the point I thought you were making and the point I responded to. In my dialogue with VT she knew some facts. But also had facts that were incorrect. She also knew less of the facts. Here, for some reason, you are asking for beyond all doubt. And this seems to lead you to the conclusion that such situations cannot be resolved and one cannot be objective about it. Is anyone here saying that we can have 100% knowledge? No. For some reason you have decided that this is exactly like morals - and you bring in God below - as if this is like the objectivism issue. That's just silly. Do you really think court cases are just like the task of determining whether abortion is moral? You've repeatedly distinguished between questions of fact - like, did the doctor remove the fetus from the mother OR was it a good thing to do? But now that distinction gone.

No, my point [over and again] revolves around those who insist that their own collection of facts establishes the objective truth here. And that those who don't agree are, among other things, idiots. And that, given all of the ambiguous interpretations of what constitutes "the whole truth" here, mere mortals are not equipped to pin that down.

Only here at least we are talking about the law as opposed to morality. Laws are either broken or they are not. But even the law here has to untangle all of many, many variables that can be assembled to support Baldwin's contentions as opposed to the state's contentions.

Did he break the law? Well, we'll need to follow the trial ourselves and note all the evidence. And then both sides narratives regarding it.

But my point in regard to objectivism on most threads focuses in on morality. Is there an objective morality? If Balwin had deliberately shot someone dead for his own personal reasons it could clearly be established that he broke the law. But can it be established [philosophically or otherwise] that killing another human being for your own personal reasons is inherently/necessarily immoral in a No God world?

Like, in a No God world, that actually does exist?

LOL

Laugh all you want, but there are many people right here who insist "that all rational people would be obligated to accept their own moral and political and religious dogmas". And that "they really do know the objective truth here."

This frame of mind historically has brought us those like Hitler.

See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Note make the other person's facts go away completely. That certainly wasn't my intention, nor is that extreme criterion necessary in many cases. Versions can share facts, for example. This stacking the deck type wording is silly.

Again, my point is precisely to critique those who do insist on stacking the deck in discussions like this. Those who argue that only fools don't think as they do.

Google "alec balwin is innocent": https://www.google.com/search?q=+alec+b ... s-wiz-serp

Google "alec baldwin is guilty": https://www.google.com/search?q=alec+ba ... s-wiz-serp

Tons of conflicting accounts of what happened. Tons of conflicting reactions to the charge.

And you end up by bringing God in as what could resolve if, but we're in a No God world.

So, not just this particular discussion, but discussions in general where people disagree over the facts. Hands must be thrown up in the air.

Again, that's your account of my account. In a No God world mere mortals have no choice but to do the best they can in situations like this. To not let their own personal/political prejudices as VT notes interfere with an attempt to establish what did in fact happen...and whether the law was broken. It's simply preposterous to advise people to just "throw up their hands" in regard to whatever we do in a community. Again, that's the iambiguous in your head here, not the iambiguous that I actually am. Polemics aside.

And I notice that you make not the slightest effort to be specific. You don't list her facts and mine and compare them or go into how they relate to each other or what evidence each person brought forward. You stay up in the clouds in abstraction. We somehow have these two lists of facts and one cannot possibly judge between them and the court will have the same problem. You see categories and draw some general position and throw up your hands. Whereas one can see that I added facts, cited sources, could demonstrate that at least some of her facts were wrong and incomplete and not all her facts need be false for him to be guilty. This can happen with things that are not issues of conflicting goods. And it's not some rare exception in the world of events. Well, unless you throw in the 100% certain criterion, one that you don't apply to your own conclusions in this thread while being rude to people or telling us that the court case can't resolve this.

Once again, from my frame of mind, this is you making it all about me. You don't like me. So, sure, I speculate as to why that is.

I've read a number of accounts. But I'm waiting to follow the actual trial. It's a truly interesting case precisely because it all unfolded on a film set...where real and make-believe can get all tangled up. Just as what we think happened in our head there and what really did happen can. Instead, my point was to note how in situations like this, as with the controversy I noted above...

I recall the courtroom scene from the film Reversal of Fortune. Sunny von Bülow is hovering like a ghost above the proceedings below. Speculating on what the outcome of the trial might be. Now, there was "the fact of the matter": Claus is either guilty or not guilty of putting her into an irreversible coma. The jury acquitted him. But was their own decision in fact the right one?

In a No God world there is often no way to get around this even in the either/or world.

...mere mortals in a No God world can sometimes act as though they are God. VT in particular here but lots of others from other threads. But that can only be but my own subjective personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein. I don't exclude myself from my own point of view.

Then the assumption others make that in a court of law, a jury verdict establishes this. And in some cases, sure, the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict almost certainly is the correct one. But in a case like this?

On a movie set? Where pretend and reality often become entangled? Where the points raised by either side are not clearly irrational? Where, in my view, only a fool would argue that he is "beyond all doubt whatsoever" guilty or not guilty?

What facts about the case -lol - indicate to you that this case is in one category and not in the other. You seem to think, having read about the case, that there cannot be overwhelming evidence one way or the other.

Over and again: my aim was to note how in controversial cases like this, well before it ever comes to trial, some will present their own assessment of "the facts" as though they themselves were omniscient and really were justified in calling others names if they did not agree with them.

And that even in the trial itself both sides are going to have to deal with the ambiguities involved. Neither side, I suspect, will succeed in making the other side's points just go away such that in the end all rational people can say, "yeah, that really is exactly what happened and Alec Baldwin really is unequivocally guilty or innocent".

So, sure, after the trial, let's come back and argue it out. Unless, in the interim, a plea deal is made.

Then [of course] back to smearing me:

So, you have made a decision yourself that you seem to think others cannot. You think you know objectively that there is no clear case either way. But if we were to take a position that it looks like he's guilty, we can't know that. Or the opposite. (I know, you'll claim you never said you knew, you never made claims...walks like a duck, talks like a duck, when this is pointed out, you claim not to ever have though you were a duck. Even though socially you went so far as to insult people for not being ducks like you)

And...

But you, for some reason, pop in and throw up your hands and in a general way. We can't determine anything. Then for no reason at all bring in God. Then call out for omniscience. Here to defend yourself any decision would have to be 100% and you assume, for reasons of your own, the people other than you in the thread are claiming their positions must be 100% correct.

No, instead, in my opinion, only the most arrogant objectivists among us hold in contempt others that do not think exactly as they do about a context this inherently ambiguous.

I didn't hold her in contempt. You just projected your own contempt for objectivists onto the scenario. I didn't insult her. She insulted Skepdick but not me. I disagreed with her version. I did not insult her. She started off disagreeing with me and did not insult me. You came in an insulted everyone in the thread before you got there. Anyone who thought we could determine which versions were likely to be weak or weaker or better.

Exactly. My point is clearly aimed at her. But the points I raise about situations like this are no less applicable to most of us, in my view. And it's less a contempt for objectivists [after all, that too is no less rooted existentially in dasein, right?] and more the need to point out how dangerous they can be when they come to acquire political power in any particular community. For example, imagine if VT were to become a moderator or an administer here at PN? How long would I be around?

Also, I am quick to point out that moral nihilists can be equally if not more dangerous. The rich and the powerful who own and operate the global economy, the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings, the sociopaths among us.

You insulted everyone as if we insulted each other in the manner you insulted everyone as fiercely fanatical objectivists.

And when this is pointed out you can't even admit it.

On the contrary, I have sustained any number of exchanges with members here that involved no insults. The latest being this one: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39252

And, given what some construe to be my pessimistic, cynical, if not downright disturbing "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy, it is often they who start in on the insults. Though, as I have noted, I am prone to provocative polemical exchanges. That's true.

Still, anytime anyone here wishes to sustain an exchange with me regarding the things that interest me philosophically, I can assure them it won't be me who becomes insulting if they'd prefer a straight up exchange of opinions.

Look, my perspective on morality in a No God world is that neither philosophers nor ethicists nor scientists can establish that, in regard to conflicting goods, some behaviors are inherently/necessarily/objectively moral while others are inherently/necessarily/objectively immoral. And that would include Baldwin deliberately shooting someone. That includes all human behaviors. Up to and including the Holocaust. After all, as some insist, "in the absence of God all things are permitted".

And if someone can't see the distinction between arguing that in fact Joe Biden is now president of the United States and that in fact Joe Biden is the greatest president there has ever been...?

All I can say is that if you go back and read the post you purportedly responding to here, I clearly understand what you meant.

No, from my frame of mind, you clearly did not. Instead, I think your reaction to me here revovles more around this:

Note to others:

I have reason to believe that Iwannaplato is Moreno/Karpel Tunnel from ILP. And we go way back there. He was one of my very own Three Stooges there. Along with phyllo and felixdacat. And they were Stooges not because they disagreed with my moral philosophy but because in discussing it their posts were often all about me instead. I was the problem.

Exemplified in my view by this very post.

All of them seemed to react in a perturbed manner to my argument that in a No God world it is reasonable to suggest that being "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments makes sense.

One way or another they seemed convinced that, yes, God or No God, mere mortals are capable of coming up with the Humanist equivalent of Commandments.

And the idea that their own life might be essentially meaningless ontologically and essentially purposeless teleologically in a No God world? Well, that too had to be shooed away. Couple that with my prediction that death = oblivion?

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Yes, to resolve any issue we need omniscience. Though oddly you didn't need omniscience to determine this and a host of other implicit and explicit assertions in this post of yours. Oh, wait, maybe you are omniscient. Apologies.

No, my point is that omniscience is clearly not necessary to establish that Baldwin did in fact shoot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Rust set. And that she died. But given the complexity of all the variables intertwined here, how would someone who is not "all knowing" unequivocally establish that he broke the law?

With the law, however, we can get closer to a truth. The laws are on the book in regard to killing another human being. Technically, he either broke the law or he didn't. Only given all of the conflicting assessments of what unfolded there -- Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer, Baldwin taking the "cold" gun from the armaments expert, and on and on, there are all manner of subjective narratives that might come into conflict.

Let alone establishing whether anything that any of us do is either objectively moral or immoral.

Again, you seem to think it has to be 100%. Unequivocably.

No, I'm pointing out that in a No God world, some mere mortals act as though they were God. All-knowing. And that this particular context is more open to ambiguity and to subjective assumptions than others.

At this point [well before the trial] all we have are "versions" based on accounts from those who may or may not have their own personal agendas in noting "the facts".

And my points here [as noted above] were directed at VT.

Then, of course, in my opinion, back to what this is really all about for you:

Now you may claim...oh, but I don't really know. But that's after making assertions and insulting people and writing about their motivations (things in other minds than yours you claim to know about). For someone skeptical about the possibilities for knowledge you'd think you'd be more careful about the labels you give others and the assertions you make about their internal states. When you make claims and assertions it is never intended as claims (lol). When others say anything, it is meant as 100% and further when they insult it is a sign of objectivism, when you do it is a sign of...I don't know a cognitive fart??

But no, you come in, certain enough in your judgments to mind read, insult
and missing the irony
that you are categorizing people insultingly while judging them for.....

categorizing people insultingly.

Understand. You seem to think you had enough evidence to draw conclusion about other people's internal states, including mine, didn't throw up your hands, but felt you could draw a conclusion. Is the problem of other minds a problem for you? Seems not to be.

And...you think you have enough facts to think it is unlikely this case can actually be resolved objectively. Which means....
you evaluated what you see as the facts and drew an objective conclusion.

Most of this was clear in my previous post.

I'm sure you're a nice neighbor or whatever, but next time you flail into a conversation and start categorizing and insulting people...I dunno, maybe find that beam in your own eye. Cause it's really annoying when people take the high moral ground - Oh, I'm not an objectivist like you guys - then you do all the things you are complaining the objectivists are doing. Showing contempt. Insulting. And seeming to think you have evaluated the facts enough to draw an objective conclusion (that we can't really know if he's guilty, nor could they determine this in a court).

The ironies abound.

A small request. Leave me out of your insulting, mind reading claims in the future. I'll focus on other people's posts and not yours. It's like wading through your twisting things. I'll pass, again, for a while.

I find myself, in such discussions with you, so far here, going over the same ground in a few different paraphrases in the hopes that some, perhaps small, point of concession will arise. Of course, it's not your fault that I have this reaction to your misrepresentations, denials, convenient reframings and seeming (also convenient) hypocrisy. But regardless, it's suddenly like being at work. I find myself acting as if it is so unlikely you will actually take any of this seriously and take a real look at your behavior. Hence the long-windedness and rewordings.

So, I'll stop here, since you're senstive to other people's huffing and puffing (but not your own).

And yes, I know. I made you the issue. Oh wait, no, you took that tack and I pointed out the philosophical problems with it and returned the favor. You don't always make people the issue, but you often do. Then play the victim.

Note to others:

You tell me.

HIM

Exactly. My point is clearly aimed at her.

I suppose this is as close to an apology I'll get.

Clear?
viewtopic.php?p=620783#p620783
Nah.

Absolutely shameless!!!

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely shameless!!!

Objectivist moral judgment noted, but nope, what's shameless is how easy it would have been to be clear in the first place and to apologize immediately for not being clear.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Absolutely shameless!!!

Objectivist moral judgment noted, but nope, what's shameless is how easy it would have been to be clear in the first place and to apologize immediately for not being clear.

Or not read it. I never read his rubbish

[Iwannaplato]

Or not read it. I never read his rubbish

What? Miss out on the latest sonata from the Mozart of passive-aggressiveness??????

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

Weigh in here.

[Iwannaplato]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/arts ... ldwin.html

Baldwin’s Lawyers Say Manslaughter Charge Was Based on Wrong Law

Well, sure, weighing in. Here we got a post with some actual substance to it and it's on topic and not about God or abortion or Hitler. (or other posters at PN if one leaves out the commentary at the end). Nice contribution!

And if this is true, prosecutor misuse of the law, which would not surprise me, how typical.

I have a guilty pleasure/displeasure. Videos of police on Youtube who do not know the basic rules of engagement with people. Who are confused about when one can demand ID when it is a crime not to show it. When a passenger in a car must show ID. When you can demand someone get out of a car or leave an area or building. And so on. It is truly remarkable how common it is for police not to know what should be rather basic information.

Well, you don't get to see the videos of the prosecution confusions about law, but they exist as well. (some of these confusions may also be convenient 'forgettings' by both police and DAs)

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-just ... ge-problem
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... or-problem

The article quoted by iambiguous seems to allow that criminal negligence is still on the table in the Baldwin actions, just that the prosecutors are going for extra punishment based on false application of a new law.

One problem is that the motivation for prosecutors (and the main rewards of the system for them) is not centered on justice. It's centered askew that goal.

[iambiguous]

Come on, leaving your contempt for me out of it, we had an exchange going above pertaining to the actual incident on the Rust set:

YOU:

That was exactly the point I thought you were making and the point I responded to. In my dialogue with VT she knew some facts. But also had facts that were incorrect. She also knew less of the facts. Here, for some reason, you are asking for beyond all doubt. And this seems to lead you to the conclusion that such situations cannot be resolved and one cannot be objective about it. Is anyone here saying that we can have 100% knowledge? No. For some reason you have decided that this is exactly like morals - and you bring in God below - as if this is like the objectivism issue. That's just silly. Do you really think court cases are just like the task of determining whether abortion is moral? You've repeatedly distinguished between questions of fact - like, did the doctor remove the fetus from the mother OR was it a good thing to do? But now that distinction gone.

ME:

No, my point [over and again] revolves around those who insist that their own collection of facts establishes the objective truth here. And that those who don't agree are, among other things, idiots. And that, given all of the ambiguous interpretations of what constitutes "the whole truth" here, mere mortals are not equipped to pin that down.

Only here at least we are talking about the law as opposed to morality. Laws are either broken or they are not. But even the law here has to untangle all of many, many variables that can be assembled to support Baldwin's contentions as opposed to the state's contentions.

Did he break the law? Well, we'll need to follow the trial ourselves and note all the evidence. And then both sides narratives regarding it.

But my point in regard to objectivism on most threads focuses in on morality. Is there an objective morality? If Balwin had deliberately shot someone dead for his own personal reasons it could clearly be established that he broke the law. But can it be established [philosophically or otherwise] that killing another human being for your own personal reasons is inherently/necessarily immoral in a No God world?

ME:

Like, in a No God world, that actually does exist?

YOU:

LOL

ME:

Laugh all you want, but there are many people right here who insist "that all rational people would be obligated to accept their own moral and political and religious dogmas". And that "they really do know the objective truth here."

This frame of mind historically has brought us those like Hitler.

ME:

See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

YOU:

Note make the other person's facts go away completely. That certainly wasn't my intention, nor is that extreme criterion necessary in many cases. Versions can share facts, for example. This stacking the deck type wording is silly.

ME:

Again, my point is precisely to critique those who do insist on stacking the deck in discussions like this. Those who argue that only fools don't think as they do.

Google "alec balwin is innocent": https://www.google.com/search?q=+alec+b ... s-wiz-serp

Google "alec baldwin is guilty": https://www.google.com/search?q=alec+ba ... s-wiz-serp

Tons of conflicting accounts of what happened. Tons of conflicting reactions to the charge.

YOU:

And you end up by bringing God in as what could resolve if, but we're in a No God world.

So, not just this particular discussion, but discussions in general where people disagree over the facts. Hands must be thrown up in the air.

ME:

Again, that's your account of my account. In a No God world mere mortals have no choice but to do the best they can in situations like this. To not let their own personal/political prejudices as VT notes interfere with an attempt to establish what did in fact happen...and whether the law was broken. It's simply preposterous to advise people to just "throw up their hands" in regard to whatever we do in a community. Again, that's the iambiguous in your head here, not the iambiguous that I actually am. Polemics aside.

YOU:

Then the assumption others make that in a court of law, a jury verdict establishes this. And in some cases, sure, the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict almost certainly is the correct one. But in a case like this?

ME:

On a movie set? Where pretend and reality often become entangled? Where the points raised by either side are not clearly irrational? Where, in my view, only a fool would argue that he is "beyond all doubt whatsoever" guilty or not guilty?

YOU:

What facts about the case -lol - indicate to you that this case is in one category and not in the other. You seem to think, having read about the case, that there cannot be overwhelming evidence one way or the other.

ME:

Over and again: my aim was to note how in controversial cases like this, well before it ever comes to trial, some will present their own assessment of "the facts" as though they themselves were omniscient and really were justified in calling others names if they did not agree with them.

And that even in the trial itself both sides are going to have to deal with the ambiguities involved. Neither side, I suspect, will succeed in making the other side's points just go away such that in the end all rational people can say, "yeah, that really is exactly what happened and Alec Baldwin really is unequivocally guilty or innocent".

So, sure, after the trial, let's come back and argue it out.

ME:

No, instead, in my opinion, only the most arrogant objectivists among us hold in contempt others that do not think exactly as they do about a context this inherently ambiguous.

YOU:

I didn't hold her in contempt. You just projected your own contempt for objectivists onto the scenario. I didn't insult her. She insulted Skepdick but not me. I disagreed with her version. I did not insult her. She started off disagreeing with me and did not insult me. You came in an insulted everyone in the thread before you got there. Anyone who thought we could determine which versions were likely to be weak or weaker or better.

ME:

Exactly. My point is clearly aimed at her. But the points I raise about situations like this are no less applicable to most of us, in my view. And it's less a contempt for objectivists [after all, that too is no less rooted existentially in dasein, right?] and more the need to point out how dangerous they can be when they come to acquire political power in any particular community. For example, imagine if VT were to become a moderator or an administer here at PN? How long would I be around?

Also, I am quick to point out that moral nihilists can be equally if not more dangerous. The rich and the powerful who own and operate the global economy, the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings, the sociopaths among us.

YOU:

You insulted everyone as if we insulted each other in the manner you insulted everyone as fiercely fanatical objectivists.

And when this is pointed out you can't even admit it.

ME:

On the contrary, I have sustained any number of exchanges with members here that involved no insults. The latest being this one: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39252

And, given what some construe to be my pessimistic, cynical, if not downright disturbing "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy, it is often they who start in on the insults. Though, as I have noted, I am prone to provocative polemical exchanges. That's true.

Still, anytime anyone here wishes to sustain an exchange with me regarding the things that interest me philosophically, I can assure them it won't be me who becomes insulting if they'd prefer a straight up exchange of opinions.

YOU:

Yes, to resolve any issue we need omniscience. Though oddly you didn't need omniscience to determine this and a host of other implicit and explicit assertions in this post of yours. Oh, wait, maybe you are omniscient. Apologies.

ME:

No, my point is that omniscience is clearly not necessary to establish that Baldwin did in fact shoot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Rust set. And that she died. But given the complexity of all the variables intertwined here, how would someone who is not "all knowing" unequivocally establish that he broke the law?

With the law, however, we can get closer to a truth. The laws are on the book in regard to killing another human being. Technically, he either broke the law or he didn't. Only given all of the conflicting assessments of what unfolded there -- Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer, Baldwin taking the "cold" gun from the armaments expert, and on and on, there are all manner of subjective narratives that might come into conflict.

Let alone establishing whether anything that any of us do is either objectively moral or immoral.

YOU:

Again, you seem to think it has to be 100%. Unequivocably.

ME:

No, I'm pointing out that in a No God world, some mere mortals act as though they were God. All-knowing. And that this particular context is more open to ambiguity and to subjective assumptions than others.

At this point [well before the trial] all we have are "versions" based on accounts from those who may or may not have their own personal agendas in noting "the facts".

Then the rest, in my view, is you making it all about me personally. The derision that I seem to arouse in you over and over again.

So, how about this...

No more polemics, no more "huffing and puffing", no more personal attacks. Just a straight up "intelligent and civil" discussion [on this thread] about the points I raised above. And regarding any subsequent events that unfold until the trial [if there is one] ends.

[Iwannaplato]

Also on the witness list is Lane Luper, a first camera assistant on the production who, among several other crew members, resigned in protest the day before Hutchins’ death. In an email to “Rust” producers announcing his resignation, Luper denounced the lax safety measures during shooting, saying that there had been three accidental firearm discharges.

I think, if it holds up as true, means any civil case will go well for the plaintiffs, including if not especially at AB and the armorer.

Despite this a AB pointed a gun at the victim (but didn't pull the trigger according to him).

[iambiguous]

Also on the witness list is Lane Luper, a first camera assistant on the production who, among several other crew members, resigned in protest the day before Hutchins’ death. In an email to “Rust” producers announcing his resignation, Luper denounced the lax safety measures during shooting, saying that there had been three accidental firearm discharges.

I think, if it holds up as true, means any civil case will go well for the plaintiffs, including if not especially at AB and the armorer.

Despite this a AB pointed a gun at the victim (but didn't pull the trigger according to him).

Yeah, VT, what about that?

Though perhaps at the trial we might be bombarded with many, many anecdotes from many, many other film sets. It seems that what is crucial is the extent to which there is in fact a tried-and-true procedure set in place and practiced throughout the industry to prevent such shootings. Or "for all practical purposes" does it vary so widely from film to film, that almost anything can happen on any particular set.

Also, a virtual friend of mine cynically suggested that one of the reasons charges were leveled at Baldwin is because the trial will be a sensation and all those involved in it will become "celebrities". Think the OJ trial participants. I mean, come on, that's the kind of world we live in these days, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Also, a virtual friend of mine cynically suggested that one of the reasons charges were leveled at Baldwin is because the trial will be a sensation and all those involved in it will become "celebrities". Think the OJ trial participants. I mean, come on, that's the kind of world we live in these days, right?

The prosecution got embarrassed on that case and they resigned as prosecutors not long after. But Marcia Clark did make a lot of money for a memoir. So, I suppose it would depend on the aspirations of the prosecutors. Do they want to be seen as big shot lawyers and head perhaps into judgeships on up, perhaps to politics? Or do they want money and don't mind getting reamed by a dream team of defense lawyers a rich celebrity can gather and aim at the state? Depends on their values I suppose. And they may soon find out what their values are and be surprised.

[iambiguous]

And so it goes...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-dropp ... d=98734243

[Agent Smith]

Alec Baldwin was tried in a court of justice, which means evidence was presented, witnesses took the stand, arguments were made and then he was acquitted. End of story.

But wait ... said the bear in the pub ... on the mountain ... in Kamatsura.

[mickthinks]

Wait for what, AS? For you to offer a cogently reasoned idea of your own?

[Harbal]

Alec Baldwin was tried in a court of justice, which means evidence was presented, witnesses took the stand, arguments were made and then he was acquitted. End of story.

Yes, but we have the advantage of not being there in court, and not being aware of all the evidence, which puts us in a far better position to arrive at a proper verdict.