Comments by "Killed The Cat" (@killedthecat1034) on "See moment judge throws out case against Alec Baldwin" video.

  1. The same goes the other way, as well. 👍
    44
  2.  @JalepenoBremer  You mean the rational human being who can be subjective and see all sides in order to come to the best conclusion. Yep! That's me. In the adult world, sometimes everyone is wrong, sometimes one side is wrong, and sometimes the other. Then, sometimes, no one was wrong, and it was all just a tragic accident. Like how Brandon Lee died in the Crow movie. Grow up. 🙄
    13
  3.  @Odog78  With all the children on this thread, 🙄 in a court of law, both the defense and prosecution have discovery. There are cases in which the defense withholds evidence or makes claims to have evidence they don't. Both sides do it, and it is wrong when either of them does. Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to get the crayons out?
    8
  4.  @earlthepearl4161  It's called intent. Also, there are many occupations that occasionally require pointing a gun at someone. That's like saying we should ban all vending machines because one fell on a guy and killed him. It was a tragic accident. They happen.
    6
  5.  @earlthepearl4161  But it's not reckless disregard. Why would he have ever been under the impression that the gun was going to fire that way? He is on a movie set. He is acting. He is well aware of safety protocols. He would have had no reason to assume it would have done that at all.
    6
  6.  @brianrichardcohn2159  Were we talking about the defense or the defendant? The right against self-incrimination is for the defendant, not the defense. There is a difference.
    4
  7.  @brettgracey9682  What is the first part of that word? "SELF." The defense and the defendant are two different things. If the defense attorney who is putting up the defense becomes aware of criminal activity by their client, they are mandated to report it. Your defense attorney is not covered under self-incrimination.
    3
  8.  @adamrussell658  Not the point... and your argument is semantics. If a criminal defendant and their lawyer have evidence that points to their guilt and they do not disclose it, and then someone finds that out, not only is that an additional charge for the defendant, but that lawyer will face review and likely lose their license. That is why, under attorney-client privilege, if a defendant discloses a crime to their lawyer, the lawyer is obligated to report it. That is why the defendant does not have traditional discovery in criminal proceedings. It is all supposed to be reported to the prosecution, at which time the prosecution adds it to their discovery. So both parties have discovery.
    3
  9.  @adamrussell658  That also doesn't only apply to a defendant admitting to a crime. If the attorney for that defendant independently finds evidence of their client's guilt, they are required to report it.
    3
  10.  @UncensoredCowboy  Wrong... I did not say that. Now you are just making things up. The defense lawyer has to report any criminal act their client is a party to if they have that information. The defendant is also not able to intentionally conceal evidence of a crime. Therefore, any evidence obtained by the defense must be turned over if it is proof of criminal acts. The right against self-incrimination does not apply to the defense attorney because they are not the defendant. The defense attorney has to disclose any incriminating evidence that their client produces. Not the defendant. The defense. Hence, discovery. In our legal justice system, you can't cherry-pick the rules you want or don't want to follow.
    3
  11.  @stephanusdutoit3796  Are you seriously trying to pretend you don't know what they were doing when that happened?
    3
  12.  @skillcoiler  I swear... the things you all make up in your heads. 🙄 If the defense has evidence of their client's crime or any other crime their client is participating in, they must disclose that to the prosecution. They cannot claim in a court of law (or under oath in any other capacity) that they have evidence of (for example) an alibi when they don't in order to lead the prosecution into acting in their client's favor. Those are just two examples.
    3
  13.  @kaltenp7870  If a defendant discloses criminal acts to their defense attorney or if the defense attorney comes across evidence of their crimes, they are legally obligated to report it. Since the defense attorney is not the defendant in that scenario, it does not violate the right against self-incrimination.
    3
  14.  @kaltenp7870  Were we talking about the defense or the defendant? The right against self-incrimination is for the defendant, not the defense. There is a difference.
    3
  15.  @brianrichardcohn2159  My bad. That wasn't for you. I just noticed.
    3
  16.  @brettgracey9682  If the defendant is found guilty of the crime, do the defense attorney and their client go to jail? Then, yes! Two different things.
    2
  17. That's what happens when people are trying to become famous instead of seeking justice.
    2
  18.  @brettgracey9682  The attorney-client privilege doesn't mean you get to commit a crime by participating in covering up a crime. If you have knowledge of or evidence of their guilt, you have to turn it over.
    2
  19.  @brettgracey9682  Attorney client privilege does not cover criminal acts. If an attorney is found to have had knowledge. Or evidence of a crime and did not report it that would be their license... and could be their freedom. That's called concealing a crime.
    1
  20. I've never been a big fan of Baldwin, but this case was crazy to begin with. People are trying to get famous, not justice.
    1
  21.  @uscg1381  It means no one on either side should conceal evidence of a crime. I have no idea why so many of you are so offended by that notion... And yes, that is how it works.
    1
  22.  @omegaz3393  it's plain to read just fine if people would stop reading whatever they want into it. Read the thread. I'm not going to keep repeating myself about the same thing.
    1
  23.  @kareng7201  It doesn't violate the fifth. The defense does not only comprise of the defendant.
    1
  24.  @onkelfabs6408  They can tell their client not to give them any evidence in a general sense, but if they know what that evidence is or their client chooses to ignore that advice, they have to disclose it.
    1
  25.  @brettgracey9682  It is absolutely bananas that so many of you are so offended by the idea that neither the prosecution nor the defense should cover up criminal actions.
    1
  26.  @stephanusdutoit3796  What were they doing at the time? What was happening? Now watch as you run from that question again because you know if you say the actual answer, you're ridiculous argument would look even more ridiculous. 👇
    1
  27.  @michaelmarsh8802  Which involves self incrimination, which the attorney isn't covered under. Your defense attorney can't have knowledge of a crime and not report it.
    1
  28.  @stephanusdutoit3796  So, they weren't rehearsing? So, they are on a live set rehearsing a scene, and a seasoned actor, who would have no reason to think otherwise, picks up a gun whose purpose is only for the movie scene, points it, and fires it during said rehearsal, and you still can't figure out why that happened? Yeah... You're right. You are going absolutely nowhere.
    1
  29.  @brettgracey9682  Is there a difference between the defense and the defendant?
    1
  30.  @brettgracey9682  It's "naive" to you think both sides should hold the standard of reporting evidence or knowledge of a criminal act... Okay. God Forbid, we think everyone should do the right thing.
    1
  31.  @brettgracey9682  Heck, I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose the radical notion that anyone with knowledge of or evidence of a criminal act should do the right thing and report it to the authorities. Call me crazy. 🙄 It's "naïve" to expect people to do the right thing? The results you get are based on the standards you set. People like you are what's wrong with the world today.
    1
  32.  @JmO-ee1bi  yeah
    1
  33.  @brettgracey9682  They can't withhold evidence. They can know what they are "allegedly" defending their client against. They can not conceal the evidence for it. That is why they speak in terms of alleged. The only other option is to remove themselves from the case, which, at that point, would free them of that burden, but it would ruin their career to do so. That is why it is so rare.
    1
  34.  @brettgracey9682  Which doesn't cover evidence of a crime... but you keep trying to make yourself feel better. 🤣
    1
  35.  @stephanusdutoit3796  🙄 Well, I guess if the rehearsal wasn't on the books and actors have never been known to improvise on set... 🙄 You're ridiculous. Go watch the released footage of Jensen Ackles’ interview with the police. They were on set, rehearsing.
    1
  36.  @brettgracey9682  Go ahead and scroll up to the top and tell me what kind of evidence we've been referring to since the beginning? Is the bullet evidence or knowledge? Your goalpost just fell over, Boo Boo Kitty! You may want to go pick it up. 😁👇
    1
  37.  @brettgracey9682  Yes.. of the evidence, which constatutes concealment under the law. 🤣
    1
  38.  @onkelfabs6408  The defense attorney can tell their client not to give them incriminating evidence in a general sense, but if shown said evidence or coming across it independently, they must disclose it. Otherwise, they are likely to lose their law license, possibly also face legal charges, and their client will get at least one more charge. So yes, they can tell their client not to give them any evidence, but if they know what that evidence is or their client chooses to ignore that advice, they have to disclose it.
    1
  39.  @brettgracey9682  "The defense is under no obligation to provide evidence proving culpability of the defendant." "Hiding physical evidence would be a crime. Obviously not covered by attorney-client privilege." Yeah... super "consistent." 😁👍
    1
  40.  @brettgracey9682  Run along then. Go on... run! 😁👍
    1
  41.  @dznuts2114  Is the defense attorney the same thing as the defendant? You are protected from self incrimination. SELF.
    1
  42.  @pranteranaud3617  Seriously? You can't put together that the defendant whose accused of a crime may have evidence towards them doing it? The defense is not allowed to hide evidence. Just like the prosecution.
    1
  43.  @ClockworkGearhead  yes it does
    1
  44.  @ClockworkGearhead  Yes, it does because it doesn't apply to the Fifth Amendment, and it doesn't apply to client confidentiality. Which is what you were going to try to argue.
    1
  45.  @brettgracey9682  Well, now you are just lying. I copied word for word, and unless you deleted the comment, which would be you telling on yourself, anyway, it is still up there. 😁👍
    1
  46.  @brettgracey9682  You even edited the comment I pulled that from, "Queen consistency"! 😁👉 "Hiding physical evidence would be a crime, obviously not covered under attorney-client privilege, because the lawyer would be a party to a crime." 👈 😁
    1
  47.  @brettgracey9682  But wait! ✋️ There's more! 😁👉 The example you gave above that was also using physical evidence! 👉 "If the defendant produced the stolen goods and stated they were on the way to sell the items, the attorney would be legally obligated to inform the authorities of an ongoing criminal activity And not be part of a conspiracy to cover up an ongoing crime." 👈
    1
  48.  @brettgracey9682  That last one would be right before you said this! 👉 " The defense is under no obligation to provide evidence proving culpability of the defendant. They have the right not to self incriminate. " 👈 🤔 But wait! Didn't you just say this? 👉 "The defense is under no obligation to provide evidence proving culpability of the defendant." 👈
    1
  49.  @brettgracey9682  Shall we continue, or do you want to try to find another face saving way to run away like you just did there with that silly lie you just told? 😁
    1
  50.  @brettgracey9682  Nope! You are just making that up. They are hired to represent them, not commit some kind of legal symbiosis, as you are attempting to suggest. Otherwise, you would not have admitted twice now that the lawyer must independently turn over physical evidence. You know... before you tried to be silly and lied about it because your feelings were hurt. The defense is one side; the defendant is the one who will serve jail time. It's really not that hard to understand... for most.
    1
  51.  @stephanusdutoit3796  I don't even like Alec Baldwin. I've always found him obnoxious. I was not a fan of 30 Rock, and I certainly didn't appreciate how he spoke to his children. It was abusive. I, however, will not ignore all relevant evidence and material in order to come to the most logical conclusion. You, on the other hand, babble about nonsense that doesn't mean anything and do silly things like refuse to acknowledge where they were and what they were doing, all because your ego was bruised by the facts. It was a tragic accident. The only person they might have a case against is the prop attendant for negligence. Get over it.
    1
  52.  @stephanusdutoit3796  No, YOU never point a gun directly at someone and then pull. It's not necessary for your job. You are not an actor. The fact that you are now pretending to play director, as if you know anything about any of that, doesn't mean a thing. There are tons of safety protocols. This is why when he pointed and pulled, never in his life would he have thought that it really would have shot someone. It's a movie set. They were rehearsing. It's the exact way Brandon Lee died on the set of the Crow. An accident.
    1
  53.  @i.just.pooted  Nope! Because watch this! Please provide proof of your claims? 😁👇
    1
  54.  @stephanusdutoit3796  🤣 Now, actors who are hired to work on movies are also now in charge of the hiring of studio workers. Okay.. 🤣 You're a ridiculous person.
    1
  55.  @stephanusdutoit3796  And now it's actors' jobs to do prop maintenance work! Please... keep going! 🤣
    1
  56.  @stephanusdutoit3796  Nope! I just think people are responsible for doing the job they are hired to do. Common sense and reality don't lend themselves to your desperation to avoid being wrong when you clearly are. It's a prop manager's job to manage the props. It's an actor's job to rehearse and act. It's not that difficult of a concept.
    1
  57.  @stephanusdutoit3796  Also, we actually have cars that check their own wheel pressure now, Grandpa. Also, you don't really have to do much with a car wheel past glancing at it in order to tell if it's got too much or too little air. So your analogy kind of sucks.
    1
  58.  @stephanusdutoit3796  Oh... and... Did it work this time? 😁 Do you really think you were fooling anyone? 🤣
    1
  59.  @brettgracey9682  But wait! That's not what you said (and then tried to lie about saying), remember? 😁👉 "Hiding physical evidence would be a crime, obviously not covered under attorney-client privilege, because the lawyer would be a party to a crime." 👈 😁 And then you said this! 😁 👉 "The defense is under no obligation to provide evidence proving culpability of the defendant. They have the right not to self-incriminate." 😁 👈 So which time were you lying, funny bunny?
    1
  60.  @brettgracey9682  And why are you lying about me, adding the words "hiding" and "physical" to a quote you gave? It's right there. I think we both know why you were lying.
    1
  61.  @brettgracey9682  Convince yourself yet, Stalker Brian? 🤣
    1
  62.  @Odog78  Guess it was clear enough.
    1
  63.  @retroray58warby98  either or... both are applicable. I felt subjective was better given the subject matter and exchange.
    1