The Washington Post reports. Free-access link.
One of the prosecutors “was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in her ruling. “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.”
“There is no way for the court to right this wrong,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in court as Mr. Baldwin wept....The dismissal followed a dramatic scene when a manila envelope of previously unexamined evidence was brought into the courtroom. Judge Marlowe Sommer then put on blue latex gloves, cut it open with a pair of scissors and got down from the bench to examine the ammunition inside in the well of the courtroom.
Lawyers for Mr. Baldwin called for the case to be dismissed, accusing the state of failing to disclose that it had been given a batch of rounds said to be connected to the case when the defense asked to review all the ballistic evidence. “They buried it,” Luke Nikas, a lawyer for Mr. Baldwin, said in court on the third day of the trial. “They put it under a different case with a different number.”...
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
Major Democrat donor faces no penalty for killing person in Democrat county where Democrat prosecutor makes "mistake" allowing Democrat judge to dismiss charges on non-substantive grounds.
Oh how this will piss off the Althouse commentariat.
What a yummy comments page.
One of the prosecutors “was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in her ruling. “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.”
That is the correct result.
What would also be the correct result is throwing said prosecutor into jail, for life
Convicted? No…
This is the correct result. Baldwin probably should have been found guilty, but the prosecution doesn't get to pull this crap.
Chuck said...
Oh how this will piss off the Althouse commentariat.
What a yummy comments page.
Why yes, Chuck, we, like all decent people, are appalled at corrupt prosecutors.
We're also appalled at the possibility of a criminal getting away with his crimes.
Which of those are you good with?
The case should never have been brought. I don't like Baldwin's politics but this indictment was a travesty- there is no disputing that Baldwin believed the gun was unloaded- it was a movie set and the gun should have been unloaded. It was nothing more than a tragic accident even with Baldwin pointing the gun and pulling the trigger.
And I will point out to Chuck the Cunt that the commentariat was never baying for Baldwin's blood in this case- most of us realized it was an accident. Sure, there will be a few that will be unhappy but Chuck is going to be disappointed once again.
The prosecution has never even speculated about where those live rounds came from. I find that a bit odd. Also, from what I've read the investigation by the NMSP of the local guy who supplied the ammo to the set was very slipshod. I'm wondering if that isn't a case of someone having a buddy in the statehouse who's helping them cover something up. I don't like Baldwin, but I don't think he really had any criminal culpability in the matter. I think this whole affair; Baldwin's trial and the armorer's trial was part cover-up, part press garnering exercise.
OJ number 2.
I do find it hilarious how much Chuck likes to project his own ethical shortcomings on everyone else.
Trial court judges have enormous power. And that’s why they shouldn’t be elected.
I appeared by phone in Furnas County, Nebraska. The case before mine, a guy got 100 days in jail for appearing shirtless in courthouse, jumped over the clerk’s counter and locking himself in the judge’s office. She wasn’t there at the time.
I’ve seen that counter and that’s quite a jump.
It was nothing more than a tragic accident even with Baldwin pointing the gun and pulling the trigger.
Maybe if the asshole didn't spend a good portion of his life beating the shit out of gun owners and the NRA - and actually spent some time learning about gun safety - I'd be more lenient towards this being an accident.
As it is, he killed someone and gets to walk.
I'm a firm believer in karma. He'll get his.
I'm surprised that Ann has never posted anything on the Rico trial of rapper Young Thug.
Fani Willis' office is riding rough shod over justice in Atlanta
John Henry
Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” shooting trial was dismissed with prejudice
Well, now, that really sucks.
because that means he gets away with it, rather than having to go through a new trial where he has all the evidence.
I wonder if the prosecutor was paid off to throw the case? Or if the weasel did it for persona reasons
Oh how this will piss off the Althouse commentariat.
What a yummy comments page.
Maybe you should go run your mouth to the victim's family. I'm sure they'd appreciate your gloating.
What was that “Two Americas” speech again, you know, the one given by that guy running for president who used donor money to pay off a bimbo, and nobody ever prosecuted him, Democrat..
On movie sets people point guns at other people all the time and pull the triggers- it part of making movies. The armorer is the one given the responsibility of making sure the guns are safe to use in this way. Were this just some bar Baldwin was drinking at and someone handed him the gun and told him it was unloaded and he then proceeded to shoot someone and kill them, then that would be reckless behavior- but that is not what happened here- that intervening responsibility, in my opinion, absolves him of the reckless part even if I would have done the gun check anyway. Now, as one of the people owning the production of the movie, he deserved to pay steeply in financial compensation to the dead woman's family.
There is nothing about intent in the law. If you pick up a gun, it’s your legal obligation to check whether it is loaded. It’s a common sense clear cut matter of safety that really doesn’t need to be made fuzzy.
Assume the weapon is loaded... and other unreasonable safety rules. This is why we have Planned Pistolhood (PP) to relieve "burdens" of proof.
Re: Chuck:
Oh how this will piss off the Althouse commentariat.
I mean, it will, sure, but the Trump investigations have exposed so much baseline prosecutorial scumbaggery to people who aren't even defense lawyers that it probably isn't surprising to anyone at this point, even the laity.
I absolutely agree that the correct result is dismissal if the State intentionally concealed the existence of material evidence. Or even negligently concealed it, if it's material.
But I'm a little confused as to how these other rounds were material. Was there ever any doubt that the rounds fired by Baldwin which killed the woman were live?
(You will probably tell me to read the article. I'm sort of hoping I don't have to).
"If you pick up a gun, it’s your legal obligation to check whether it is loaded. It’s a common sense clear cut matter of safety that really doesn’t need to be made fuzzy."
"Assume the weapon is loaded... and other unreasonable safety rules."
Alec is a well-known gun hater. Aside from applauding using the government to grab them out of your hands, do you really think he has any ideas about gun safety?
He wrote the script he was the producer he was the actor did the ammo match the one that was fired
There is no shortage of law school graduates on this forum to explain the details.
Apparently, the prosecution screwed up. Egregiously. If so, justice demands this verdict.
Why would the prosecution behave in this fashion? I bet there will be speculation.
Yancey Ward said...
The case should never have been brought. I don't like Baldwin's politics but this indictment was a travesty- there is no disputing that Baldwin believed the gun was unloaded- it was a movie set and the gun should have been unloaded. It was nothing more than a tragic accident even with Baldwin pointing the gun and pulling the trigger.
And I will point out to Chuck the Cunt that the commentariat was never baying for Baldwin's blood in this case- most of us realized it was an accident. Sure, there will be a few that will be unhappy but Chuck is going to be disappointed once again.
The Althouse Alec Baldwin tag is your friend, sport.
What am I missing?
The prosecution said they weren't even going to use it.
It's a big club...
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1811886058746876092
I don't understand the relevance to this case that the friend of the stepfather of the armorer, the woman in charge of props on the movie set, possessed some live ammunition. (The big question being, where did the live ammo come from? How did this mistake happen?) Did she say where that ammo came from? Was she mixing up the live ammo and the blanks? I haven't followed that case closely.
Really what does that have to do with Alec Baldwin? Did he load the gun? No, that wasn't his job. Of course that doesn't absolve Baldwin from the fact that he squeezed the trigger which ultimately killed someone. But I don't blame him for assuming that the gun was safe, especially when the blanks apparently look just like the real thing. The studio pays someone whose total job is handling that one responsibility. Plus he has already settled a lawsuit for wrongful death. I think it's a good thing this case is closed. How we got here is strange, but whatever.
I'm thinking if you paid an electrician to install a light switch and a guest at your home gets electrocuted from touching that switch you are liable as the owner of the house, but I doubt you'd be accused of criminal manslaughter because you invited them for the weekend.
"Why would the prosecution behave in this fashion? "
Because it was maybe the only way out of this open and shut case against a wealthy and connected man who was a friend to Presidents?
Chuck was right though, we are having a field day with examining the planning and abject corruption of our "Just Us" system, or is it the "system of just us"
Dershowitz said it was an unconstitutional charge in the first place - the law was written to give you no clue if you're violating it.
So, the female armorer was convicted. Was this evidence not introduced in her trial? Or was it? Or it didn’t matter?
Corrupt prosecutor versus dopey, negligent defendant describes both Alec Baldwin and Donald Trump’s circumstances. Here’s hoping Trump’s prosecutions end the same way as Baldwin’s.
I read those threads before I commented, Chuck the Cunt. Perhaps it would have been wise for you to so. Most of the commentariat was not baying for Baldwin's blood. Most of the commentariat understood it was a tragic accident even if they didn't shed any tears for his plight. Why don't you just read this thread? We aren't like you, Chuck- we actually have an ethical core that you apparently lack and try to project onto others.
I don't understand why such a prosecution was even brought. This is speculative, but perhaps it was brought simply because he was famous and the prosecutor was hoping she could leach off of that fame. I saw a snippet on the news. The prosecutor was attractive. Maybe she had visions of being the next expert legal commentator on cable news....The OJ lawyers on both sides went on to fame and fortune. Beats prosecuting DUI's.
Well the prosecutor was initially reluctant im still trying to see how the charge did not fit involuntary negligence manslaughter
imTay,
You do the gun check if you are unsure of its status- that is normal behavior for a gun owner and user. However, this situation isn't one that you or I would find ourselves in- he had no reason at all to doubt the gun wasn't loaded with live ammo- this was a movie set in which he was going to be pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger then or later- it was part of rehearsal. It was an accident- the armorer is the only person responsible in this case.
Major Democrat donor faces no penalty for killing person in Democrat county where Democrat prosecutor makes "mistake" allowing Democrat judge to dismiss charges on non-substantive grounds.
Yes, Bob B, funny how that works. He badly mishandled a firearm and a woman is dead. But he donated -- and no doubt still donates -- big bucks to Democrats whereas the woman he killed is no longer in any position to donate anything to anybody. Hence the "accidental" screw-up by the prosecution.
Yeah, I'm cynical. I lived in and around Washington, DC, for a long time.
"I'm still trying to see how the charge did not fit involuntary negligence manslaughter"
The brakes on your car are going bad and you take it to the mechanic to get the pads replaced. You pay for the work and take the car back out onto the road and run over a pedestrian because, it turns out, the mechanic made a mistake and replaced the pads on the wrong car and you couldn't stop in time. Are you guilty of negligent homicide? If not, why not?
Oft evil will shall evil mar.
"You do the gun check if you are unsure of its status"
Is that the law in New Mexico? Or what you think that the law should be based on the norms of the movie industry? Because the law in New Mexico is that the person who picks up the deadly weapon must personally determine whether it is loaded and is cannot pass off responsibility onto another.
This was an open and shut case until the prosecutor found a way to throw it.
"Chuck" as usual drops a turd in the punch bowl. Go away Chuck.
No possibility of justice for an innocent dead woman, and Chuck is gleeful.
Hes a ghoul as if we hadnt guessed before
I'm familiar with guns, so I would do a safety check out of habit--even if I was an actor handed a prop. For Baldwin, it was a prop, not a gun. Real guns are sometimes used as props, but they are controlled by professionals who ensure that they are safe. The prop master turns a real gun into a prop by making sure the gun is inoperable, empty, contains blanks, etc.
Other actors have been killed with prop guns. Baldwin should not have pointed the gun at anybody. Still, a tragic accident.
Brandon Lee Shot By Prop Gun Filming 'The Crow'
One of the most infamous film set tragedies was the death of actor Brandon Lee, 28, in 1993. Lee, the son of actor Bruce Lee, had a starring role in goth cult classic The Crow. The scene in question depicted a group of gang members fatally shooting Lee's character after he walks in on them murdering his fiancée the night before the couple's wedding. A series of mistakes led to a dummy cartridge getting stuck in the barrel of the gun, unknown to the prop crew.
When actor Michael Massee fired the gun at Lee, the dummy round fired just as a real loaded gun would. The bullet struck Lee in the stomach, hitting his aorta. He died in a nearby hospital following hours of surgery. The film was completed using Lee's stunt double and CGI.
A Young Actor Shot Himself In The Head
In 1984, actor Jon-Erik Hexum accidentally shot himself in the head. Hexum had a role on CBS's Cover Up. When he was told about some production delays, he jokingly picked up a prop gun, put it to his head, and pulled the trigger. Though the gun had been loaded with blanks instead of real bullets, the impact fractured his skull and drove a shard of it into his brain. Hexum was only 26. His final words were, "Can you believe this crap?"
This is exactly right. If the prosecution proves itself untrustworthy, dismissal with prejudice is the only just recourse. As has been noted for many years, better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent person be unjustly imprisoned. Alec Baldwin; one of a hundred that prove the rule, n'est-ce pas?
Alec Baldwin violated every single gun safety rule and someone died. Every gun is loaded until you confirm it is not loaded. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep you finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. No idea how live rounds showed up on set, but that is why there are multiple rules.
I think the people who think that the prosecution was the correct decision are more likely to be gun owners. It has been drilled into them constantly that you check the gun. A friend assures you it is unloaded? You check the gun. You know it was unloaded just 5 minutes ago when you went to the kitchen? You check the gun.
If, as we Texans believe, when Jesus comes back, he hands out handguns to everyone and assures you it isn't loaded? You check. the. gun.
No excuses. The consequences are too serious if you screw up.
Theres a reason this hasnt happened since the crow 30 years why do you think that is?
Sometimes the lefties here post stupid things for fun. See how much reaction they can get. Kinda like scoring points on Reddit.
Chuck is pretty good at it, but he is way, way, way behind Inga.On the Spectrum, Titty Twister Chuck the Lawyer not even half as good as the Fad Diet Inga.
The armorer is the one given the responsibility of making sure the guns are safe to use in this way.
===============
since the guns in movies are not supposed to be subject to high pressure gases like real guns do they even need to be built so sturdy etc///?
"If, as we Texans believe, when Jesus comes back, he hands out handguns to everyone and assures you it isn't loaded? You check. the. gun."
Devil's Advocate time...
Not everybody is knowledgeable about guns, but you're going to be handling one while playing a part in the movie you're in. What to do then? Depend on the person whose job it is to be knowledgeable about them? If not that, then what?
For the record, I'm not really a fan of Mr. Baldwin. This is an honest question.
“Prosecutor experiences meaningful consequences for behavior that violates a defendant’s rights” is a man bites dog story if there ever was one.
When I was young and naive, I assumed prosecutors wanted justice. The defense wanted to get their guy off, whether innocent or guilty, and that was fine since there's no other way the system could work, but the prosecutors represented the State, and the State has no interest in convicting an innocent man. Right? Right?
Boy, was I a dope.
They are not saying Baldwin is innocent.. just that a technicality would keep him from being tried... EVER!!!
The fix was in a long time ago.. this was staged and not an accident(the trial that is.)
Put to one side your feelings about Baldwin.
This was a strange prosecution. Somebody put a bullet in that gun. It wasn't Baldwin. Nobody knows who put the bullet in the gun. That person, the bullet person,is evil.
@Mason G, but Alec Baldwin has, as recently as 2018, presented himself as an advocate for "gun safety." For him to later argue that he had no obligation to be aware of how a single action revolver works is more than a little disingenuous.
Yancey Ward: "I do find it hilarious how much Chuck likes to project his own ethical shortcomings on everyone else."
And given the range and depth of LLR-democratical Chuck's shortcomings, that's a full time gig baby!
The case should never have been brought. I don't like Baldwin's politics but this indictment was a travesty- there is no disputing that Baldwin believed the gun was unloaded- it was a movie set and the gun should have been unloaded. It was nothing more than a tragic accident even with Baldwin pointing the gun and pulling the trigger.
Never assume a gun is unloaded. Always check. That's gun-safety 101. If Alec had taken 30-seconds to do that check, there would have been no discharge, and no death. He was negligently at fault.
The prosecutor deliberately screwed the pooch to let Baldwin off.
“My husband escaped… how you say… ass rape?”
—- Hilaria Baldwin
"For him to later argue that he had no obligation to be aware of how a single action revolver works is more than a little disingenuous."
Devil's Advocate time again...
Suppose Mr. Baldwin does have that obligation. What is the purpose of having an armorer on the set? Or of an armorer even being a thing?
At some point, doesn't everybody have to trust somebody other than themselves for something? I'd say yes. Drawing that line is the problem.
Chuck said...
"Oh how this will piss off the Althouse commentariat."
I like how you come right out of the gate admitting that the only reason you're commenting here is to troll the other commenters. At least that was very honest of you.
George Clooney on an actor’s responsibility handling firearms:
“Every single time I’m handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I’m pointing it to, I show it to the crew. Every single take. . . . Everyone does it. Everyone knows . . . . The problem is dummies are tricky because they look like real [rounds]. They got a little tiny hole in the back [from which] somebody’s [removed] the gunpowder. I mean every time I get handed a six-gun, you point it at the ground and you squeeze it six times . . . It’s just insane not to.”
Alec Baldwin’s response when asked about Clooney’s comments?
“Good for him.”
Baldwin is a weasel, of course, but prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence are immeasurably worse. Sometimes justice rewards weasels. So be it.
"Because the law in New Mexico is that the person who picks up the deadly weapon must personally determine whether it is loaded and is cannot pass off responsibility onto another."
And how many people do you suppose know this, ImTay? I am on that jury, he gets acquitted- I won't support a stupid law. You have to be aware of the law to break it before I will convict you.
chuck -the only thing that pisses us off is... you.
AS to this topic - none of us were there. we don't know what happened. But you leftist are omni-present liars. and you can all f off.
Make no mistake, Baldwin was reckless and committed egregious errors of gun safety. He has a history of doing this, and of being a complete, arrogant assh*le towards others, particularly in the context of hierarchy. He will receive his punishment. Many were hoping it would be 'here' on this mortal plane, publicly. But - what the prosecutor did - that is the punishment that society should demand, publicly, and in the extreme. Corruption of public office.
Interesting that some cannot see the overriding principle in this case. Interesting - how often gloating turns into a self-own.
@Mason G, at the time of the incident they were not shooting a scene, they were just checking camera angles. That being the case, why was his finger inside the trigger guard? Why was his thumb on the hammer?
And why are you taking the side of a self-proclaimed gun safety expert who mishandles a firearm? GUNS ARE NOT TOYS!
Put to one side your feelings about Baldwin.
This was a strange prosecution. Somebody put a bullet in that gun. It wasn't Baldwin. Nobody knows who put the bullet in the gun. That person, the bullet person,is evil.
“They put it under a different case with a different number.”
!!!
Also, Baldwin should never have been prosecuted.
Shouldn't hiding evidence under another case be a criminal.offense?
I'm kindof confused by the "of course it should be dismissed, it was an accident" comments.
1) Generally speaking, we prosecute "accidents" that result in innocent people dying or being shot. There's a fair question of how much Baldwin should be able to trust his prop people/person, and that seems like something that could be decided by a jury.
2) However, Baldwin is liable both as the man who was playing around with a real firearm on set (even if it was supposed to be not loaded with bullets), and as the producer who mismanaged the set badly enough that live ammunition was on set. This is where the "he's just an actor handed a prop" is somewhat shaky... as the management of this set was very, very bad. There had already been several firearms-related accidents on set. Another reasonable question for a jury would be "does this level of negligence rise to a criminal level?"
I also share some confusion about how the bullets could be critical to the case. Why does that particular bit of evidence have any bearing on whether Alec had a legal responsibility for gun safety of the gun he was holding or a legal responsibility to ensure a generally safe set as producer. The origin of the bullets doesn't seem particularly relevant to THIS case, even if it might have mattered quite a bit to the armorer's case.
What Yancy Ward said @ 5:50 PM last night.
Iman said...
“My husband escaped… how you say… ass rape?”
—- Hilaria Baldwin
7/12/24, 9:19 PM
GOOD ONE!!!
Mason G said...
Not everybody is knowledgeable about guns, but you're going to be handling one while playing a part in the movie you're in. What to do then? Depend on the person whose job it is to be knowledgeable about them? If not that, then what?
Everyone knows guns are deadly. If you operate a gun without understanding the basic principles of how to do so safely and it results in the death of another, your negligence caused that death. The armorer is there for risk mitigation, she did not remove Baldwin's obligation for understanding the safe operation of the machine. If the gun were a car and Baldwin ran over and killed someone on set.... the same principles apply.
As dislikable as Baldwin is, this was a perfect example of a human factors mishap — the normalization of deviation.
That is, the gradual erosion of standards because previous instances had no bad outcomes.
That is what brought down Challenger and Columbia.
This prosecution should never have been brought.
@Chuck
Have you considered getting a life?
What safeguards exist in the system to stop a prosecutor from deliberately acting in this way in order to protect a "vip" from prosecution, even guaranteeing no future prosecution can occur?
None of the comments so far have mentioned either the New Mexico Statute defining manslaughter or the New Mexico Supreme Court decisions interpreting that statute. I's been a while since I've read them so I won't say anything specific about them, but I do remember that they end up limiting the definition to seriously egregious behavior. Carelessness or not following the customary rules of firearm safety are certainly not enough.
Multiple tragedies. Tragic that Baldwin hates the NRA so much that he never took their excellent gun safety course. Tragic that he was careless about his responsibility in handling a deadly weapon, and the facts about Hexum and Lee were well known in the industry. Tragic that Baldwin hired an armorer with zero experience and severe lack of common sense. He is morally responsible but the improper handling of his case is another tragedy.
However, he is the executive producer, the big cheese, the Boss. He bears ultimate responsibility for everything on the set, especially seeing as he was there on set too. I have no idea if all the civil suits have been resolved but he is the most responsible party with deep pockets. OSHA or the NM version of it should fine him. Big fine. And they should be present on any set where he has EP responsibility in the future.
Now let’s go back to watching Jack Smith’s corrupt prosecution perform its slow motion implosion.
Brady comes into play if exculpatory evidence is withheld. Not sure how the withholding of the pistol ammo would prejudice Baldwin in this matter. Podcast from The Law of Self Defense discusses this in detail.
Assuming they weren't recording or rehearsing a scene, does that mean that when they did record or rehearse the scene, the actor would have been shot then?
Not that that would change what happened at trial, but it is arguable that Baldwin's level of culpability would be different in some way, not necessarily legally. And the armorer (or whatever) could argue that the prop was misused. Nobody was shot during a scene.
Obviously the correct response to the prosecution withholding evidence.
I can't see much point to the prosecution in the first place. Of course, you should always check if a gun is loaded, but
1) It was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, and distinguishing between real and dummy rounds is not necessarily trivial.
2) There was an expert with the direct responsibility for loading the gun with dummy rounds, and he was relying on the expert.
3) As a backup safety mechanism, there weren't supposed to be any live rounds on set, so that the expert wouldn't have the possibility of making a mistake.
4) There was no criminal intent, pattern of negligent behavior, or disregard for safety or human life.
So what are you prosecuting?
Big Mike said...
"And why are you taking the side of a self-proclaimed gun safety expert who mishandles a firearm?"
I'm not taking anyone's side, I'm asking a question. As I noted above: "For the record, I'm not really a fan of Mr. Baldwin."
Aught Severn said...
If the gun were a car and Baldwin ran over and killed someone on set.... the same principles apply.
The flaw in this analogy is that pointing a gun at a target and pulling the trigger is pretty much exactly how to properly operate a gun. Running over someone with a car is not proper operation of a car.
I think maybe people are reading more into my questions than I intended, which was a "hypothetically, in general" sort of situation and not tied to a specific incident. I also didn't mean to get into a discussion of the shooter's responsibility when he is the one in charge of the production and for hiring the technical help or any of the other associated issues relevant to this one specific incident.
It was probably a mistake to raise these questions here due to the ease of having opinions on them impacted by relating them to one particular individual and scenario. Apologies for any confusion.
"Blogger Chuck said...
Oh how this will piss off the Althouse commentariat.
What a yummy comments page.
7/12/24, 5:45 PM"
Some moron pulls the trigger of a loaded gun and ends a woman's life, and Chuck wants "yummy comments"?
Dude, you are a ghoul.
Mason G said...
The flaw in this analogy is that pointing a gun at a target and pulling the trigger is pretty much exactly how to properly operate a gun. Running over someone with a car is not proper operation of a car.
Which is why rule 1 of gun safety is "the gun is always loaded"
So you always, always check to see if a gun is loaded, and if so what with, whenever you take possession of it.
Baldwin did not correctly operate the gun, and as aq consequence killed a woman.
That's why charges like "involuntary manslaughter" exist.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा