Is Alec Baldwin guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

[EMNofSeattle]

There are a lot of tricks that can be pulled, in most situations in films, to make it look like a gun is pointed at someone without actually pointing it directly at them.

But as I understand, this was a camera test, not an actual scene - and the DP (Ms. Hutchins) requested that he point the gun directly down the barrel of the camera (which she was standing behind).

The second point is irrelevant. If someone is egging you on to do something dangerous you still have a responsibility to not act in a reckless manner.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Really? In movies they don’t point guns at other actors? I take it you’ve never in your life seen a movie higher than a G rated one, correct?

How many pictures/clips of films where guns are obviously pointed at other actors would you like me to post to prove your claim absurdly wrong (or a deliberate lie)? Or would rather just save face and admit you are wrong?

Go ahead post some if you want.

But it doesn’t actually matter because even if it’s routine to directly point live firearms at people for movies, that does not impact the law and if someone is killed doing it the person firing the bullet is liable and they clearly acted with reckless disregard for others safety. If you say “it’s not loaded” and play with a gun and kill someone that’s just as illegal with a camera crew on scene as it is at a bar

 

[EMNofSeattle]

His defense is not that he was "relying on promises." His defense is that he was not criminally negligent/reckless because. He fired the weapon, but there was no intent to kill.

Ok, that’s every reckless homicide from a gun accident ever

The case turns on whether an actor being handed a prop which he fully expects not to be loaded because there is a system in place for care and security of the prop,

In other words “my friend told me it was unloaded” which is not an effective defense in court to these charges.

and it is handed to him with the expectation that it is unloaded and then he doesn't check if it's loaded, is "reckless" conduct.

……. and then he proceeds to kill someone by firing the gun at them without knowing if it’s loaded, yeah , that’s textbook reckless conduct

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The second point is irrelevant. If someone is egging you on to do something dangerous you still have a responsibility to not act in a reckless manner.

Of course it's relevant. You don't seem to understand how mens rea works.

"Reckless" is a mental state. It depends greatly on the context of the situation.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Of course it's relevant. You don't seem to understand how mens rea works.

You don’t seem to understand it either. He only had to have the state of mind to act recklessly

"Reckless" is a mental state.

No, it’s a pattern of conduct in which you perform an action with disregard for the safety of others, you know there was a serious risk and you disregarded that risk.

In this case the Baldwin defense people are offering for him is that Alec Baldwin knowingly accepted a live firearm, somehow didn’t know how the firearm worked or how to determine if it was loaded, verbally accepted the contentions of others the gun was not loaded, then pointed it and someone and pulled the trigger resulting in her death. This is textbook reckless behavior. It doesn’t matter whose bullet it was, it’s YOUR bullet once you fire it.

It depends greatly on the context of the situation.

“My Buddy gave me a gun and told me it was unloaded then I pointed it at some chick and blew her head off” is pretty clear context. Hope orange is your color

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

You don’t seem to understand it either. He only had to have the state of mind to act recklessly

The point is that whether or not an act is "reckless" is defined as much by the situation as by the act itself.

“My Buddy gave me a gun and told me it was unloaded then I pointed it at some chick and blew her head off” is pretty clear context. Hope orange is your color

Each and every time you try to remove the context, you prove my point for me. You can see that, right?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The point is that whether or not an act is "reckless" is defined as much by the situation as by the act itself.

Yeah, the situation is dead woman by Baldwin’s hand

Each and every time you try to remove the context, you prove my point for me. You can see that, right?

This is basically what happened. Of course there’s fancy job titles and money, but if the drunk hillbilly in State v Gilliam couldn’t claim he was unaware of the firearm being loaded and didn’t load then why does Baldwin get a pass? Maybe it’s because as a leftist you are simply deciding he’s not one of “those deplorables” and thus he shouldn’t be responsible for his actions?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

This is basically what happened.

No, it isn't. Not at all.

Of course there’s fancy job titles and money, but if the drunk hillbilly in State v Gilliam couldn’t claim he was unaware of the firearm being loaded and didn’t load then why does Baldwin get a pass?

Because the context is entirely different.

Baldwin wasn't drunkenly playing with guns with his friends - he was working. He wasn't told that the gun was unloaded by another drunken friend, but by a (nominal) professional, whose job it was to specifically ensure that the gun was safe. He didn't drunkenly point the gun at Ms. Hutchins as a joke, but in the course of his employment.

(You're also misreading State v Gilliam, which is about jury instructions, not culpability)

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, it isn't. Not at all.



Because the context is entirely different.

Baldwin wasn't drunkenly playing with guns with his friends - he was working.

So millionaires get to freely shoot people when they’re on the clock? That’s a freebie?

He wasn't told that the gun was unloaded by another drunken friend, but by a (nominal) professional,

OK? So what? You are not allowed to act recklessly just because a professional tells you you can do it. How do you even define professional in this context? Do you have any idea if the friend of the defendant in the Gilliam case wasn’t a professional with firearms?

whose job it was to specifically ensure that the gun was safe. He didn't drunkenly point the gun at Ms. Hutchins as a joke, but in the course of his employment.

Again, being on the clock is not a defense to criminal charges in any penal code, which I have read.

(You're also misreading State v Gilliam, which is about jury instructions, not culpability)

Dicta explains the legal reasoning.

 

[multivita-man]

From what I know, the answer would be No. We're human beings.
I've seen people accidently run red lights. Maybe we should put them in jail for having a split second of Human Neuron Failure.
When a human makes an honest mistake I can't totally blame him/her even if someone is hurt.
I'm talking about no malice of mind.

Gross negligence can a crime, too, though. Accidents can happen, but there are some accidents that can be avoided with some care. I will leave it to a jury to be the final judge, but if the reports about crew members expressing repeated concerns about the safety on the set and nothing is done about it, that's not just an honest mistake. That's blatant negligence, for which people can - and should - be held liable.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Dicta explains the legal reasoning.

I assume this is the paragraph you're misunderstanding:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

Read the paragraphs before:

The second assignment of error is to the effect that it is necessary for the court to instruct the jury in the exact language of the particulars stated by the district attorney at the opening of trial, as follows:

"That the specific act or acts consisted of carelessly handling a loaded firearm and in particular that the defendant loaded the gun, that he handled it without due caution and circumspection while he was drinking, and that he drank intoxicants while he had a loaded gun in his possession." (Emphasis by the court.)
All that can be required of the court's instructions is that they properly give to the jury the essential facts which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant can be convicted.

In stating the essential elements in instruction No. 5 the court properly informed the jury as to everything which must be established in this case by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict defendant except as to the gun, or pistol. In instruction No. 8 the court particularized as to the handling of the gun and expressly told the jury that it was required, to warrant a conviction, to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant handled the pistol without due caution and circumspection and that his so doing was the proximate cause of the death of Eva Devoll.

In the appeal, Gilliam tried to argue that his conviction should be overturned because the jury instructions didn't include the full charges as they had been set out in the charging documents - and instead, the jury was given the statute. The text you refer to is dicussing those instructions, not somehow disallowing defenses.

The part you're ignoring - and that the Court did not ignore - is the last part: Without due caution and circumspection.

The question is how much caution and circumspection are due, in the circumstances.

 

[Super Chief]

Below is a video interview with one of the actors who worked on the set of rust. His name is Douglas Steward and he has worked for decades on movie sets, TV sets and stage sets where he has used guns and where guns were being used and not once in all those years has ever seen an actor personally check a gun. Matter of fact the standard is that they are prohibited from opening the chamber or cylinder of any gun. Only the armorer, stage director or prop master is authorized to open and inspect the guns. He also said that Alec's title as Executive Producer was mostly perfunctory as in not being in charge of any the day to day production decisions and operations and was forgoing being paid a salary and was instead seeking to profit off the backend of it.

'Rust' Actor Defends Alec Baldwin, Says Actors Not Responsible for Gun Safety

"Rust" actor Douglas Stewart is adamant about who's in charge of firearms on film sets, and says Alec Baldwin's getting a raw deal ... because actors are not typically responsible for gun safety.

www.tmz.com

As I keep repeating, it will not matter what Hollywood film production standards and practices are when it comes down to whether or not they conflict with the laws of any state regarding criminal negligence. Film production standards are not state laws. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts, that going forward the legal departments of these production companies, maybe even studios, as well as their insurance companies will all be supplementing their standards to cover their butts going forward. The Rust production company has already said, that going forward NO REAL GUNS will be used in their productions. No gun capable of firing a live round that is.

The fact remains: All guns (real guns) are ALWAYS loaded. That is the standard and practice the rest of us go by. Hollywood is not above either laws, or reality.

 

[justoneman]

4) Did hiring an "inexperienced armorer" rise to the level of negligence? Who made the decision to hire her? As this was only her second time as a lead armoror, should she have had more training supervision?

Its much worse than hiring an inexperienced armorer (she actually did have some experience). They hired an armorer who had to have a second job at the same time. She was also the props manager. She had to source chairs and rugs at the same time as keep track of guns and ammo. Not only that but she was hounded during the production, that she was not spending enough time with the props. She was harassed about it on a weekly basis.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I assume this is the paragraph you're misunderstanding:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

Read the paragraphs before:

The second assignment of error is to the effect that it is necessary for the court to instruct the jury in the exact language of the particulars stated by the district attorney at the opening of trial, as follows:

"That the specific act or acts consisted of carelessly handling a loaded firearm and in particular that the defendant loaded the gun, that he handled it without due caution and circumspection while he was drinking, and that he drank intoxicants while he had a loaded gun in his possession." (Emphasis by the court.)
All that can be required of the court's instructions is that they properly give to the jury the essential facts which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant can be convicted.

In stating the essential elements in instruction No. 5 the court properly informed the jury as to everything which must be established in this case by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict defendant except as to the gun, or pistol. In instruction No. 8 the court particularized as to the handling of the gun and expressly told the jury that it was required, to warrant a conviction, to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant handled the pistol without due caution and circumspection and that his so doing was the proximate cause of the death of Eva Devoll.

In the appeal, Gilliam tried to argue that his conviction should be overturned because the jury instructions didn't include the full charges as they had been set out in the charging documents - and instead, the jury was given the statute. The text you refer to is dicussing those instructions, not somehow disallowing defenses.

The part you're ignoring - and that the Court did not ignore - is the last part: Without due caution and circumspection.

The question is how much caution and circumspection are due, in the circumstances.

Yeah, and the decision explaining the reasoning explains the plain reasoning which applies to this case. It is irrelevant if Baldwin didn’t load the gun or didn’t believe it to be loaded.

There are lots of reckless shootings where the shooter believed the gun was unloaded and the fact Baldwin is rich and connected in Hollywood is not a reason to create irrelevant differences to try to justify his conduct

 

[Super Chief]

The armorer strictly speaking shouldn’t be liable at all. She may get harsher punishment from not being able to afford the type of lawyers Baldwin can, or may plea out, but I fail to see how handing Baldwin, an adult legally allowed to own and possess firearms, a firearm whether loaded or not is an action that one can reasonably foresee will lead to death or grave harm

I think in terms of the armorer, the DA is considering her part in not personally performing her duty to be safe. There is not doubt that had nobody died, the DA would not be looking to prosecute anyone for unsafe practices. But somebody did die, now there needs to be answers, and ultimately accountability.

Here is the language in NM:

Criminal negligence is the standard applicable to 30-47-3(F) NMSA 1978 which requires an actual or imputed foreseeability of danger directed toward the victim who might be injured as a result of the defendant's acts and a risk of harm that is substantial and unjustifiable. State v. Muraida, 2014-NMCA-060, cert.

The forseebility for both the armorer and Baldwin, was that it was a REAL gun capable of doing harm, and just because they were doing "make believe", that does not justify their failure to be safe.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

As I keep repeating, it will not matter what Hollywood film production standards and practices are when it comes down to whether or not they conflict with the laws of any state regarding criminal negligence. Film production standards are not state laws. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts, that going forward the legal departments of these production companies, maybe even studios, as well as their insurance companies will all be supplementing their standards to cover their butts going forward. The Rust production company has already said, that going forward NO REAL GUNS will be used in their productions. No gun capable of firing a live round that is.

The fact remains: All guns (real guns) are ALWAYS loaded. That is the standard and practice the rest of us go by. Hollywood is not above either laws, or reality.

The left though loves Hollywood because Hollywood is a leftist institution. So of course they are making every excuse for what is cut and dried manslaughter. It shouldn’t even be a close case.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Yeah, and the decision explaining the reasoning explains the plain reasoning which applies to this case. It is irrelevant if Baldwin didn’t load the gun or didn’t believe it to be loaded.

The decision your quoting is from the appeal, not the trial. It does not describe "the reasoning" of the jury that convicted him.

The only precedent it set applies to the wording of jury instructions. In other words, it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think in terms of the armorer, the DA is considering her part in not personally performing her duty to be safe. There is not doubt that had nobody died, the DA would not be looking to prosecute anyone for unsafe practices. But somebody did die, now there needs to be answers, and ultimately accountability.

Here is the language in NM:

Criminal negligence is the standard applicable to 30-47-3(F) NMSA 1978 which requires an actual or imputed foreseeability of danger directed toward the victim who might be injured as a result of the defendant's acts and a risk of harm that is substantial and unjustifiable. State v. Muraida, 2014-NMCA-060, cert.

The forseebility for both the armorer and Baldwin, was that it was a REAL gun capable of doing harm, and just because they were doing "make believe", that does not justify their failure to be safe.

Maybe so, the difference is between Baldwin and Hanna is that I don’t know Hanna could reasonably foresee that Baldwin would act in a reckless manner with the gun whether it was loaded or not. Baldwin was not a prohibited person, not intoxicated (at least that’s not been reported) and to the best of my knowledge has no history of this kind of action, etc so the question is, if all of this is true what is the basis for calling Hanna’s actions reckless? She provided a firearm to a rational, sober, and professional adult with judgement sufficient to himself not act recklessly, so I don’t know what the basis for the charge is.

If she gave the gun to a child and that resulted in a shooting that is different, she gave the gun to a rational adult who was himself responsible for his actions. And I really think the focus on Hanna is scapegoating. You see all the leftists here saying wealthy liberal Alec Baldwin is blameless and Hanna, a 25 year old with clear trauma and abuse history with no money for a solid legal defense should take the fall

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The decision your quoting is from the appeal, not the trial. It does not describe "the reasoning" of the jury that convicted him.

The only precedent it set applies to the wording of jury instructions. In other words, it doesn't say what you think it says.

I don’t think you understand how case law works.

The dicta of the ruling explains why the court ruled the way they did. The reason they resolved the dispute the way they did was because the instruction didn’t result in a defective conviction.

Because the particulars of how he possessed the gun and how it was loaded didn’t matter, which is what you want to avoid.

You seem to think playing with a gun and killing someone with it is not reckless if they’re a good Hollywood leftist on a set. Anyone else is screwed, Baldwin can kill people though because he pays for production staff.

 

[Bodi]

The person who said it wasn't loaded was wrong.

Logically that is correct. That is not the context of what Super Chief said though...

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I don’t think you understand how case law works.

The dicta of the ruling explains why the court ruled the way they did. The reason they resolved the dispute the way they did was because the instruction didn’t result in a defective conviction.

Because the particulars of how he possessed the gun and how it was loaded didn’t matter, which is what you want to avoid.

No. You have to actually read the case.

Gilliam didn't claim on appeal that he was innocent because he didn't know the gun was loaded, or anything to do any of the "particulars."

He appealled on a "technicality" - trying to overturn the conviction based on a due process claim, not on the merits of the facts of his case.

As such, the ruling holds no precedent in regard to the factual merits of any charge of involuntary manslaughter.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No. You have to actually read the case.

Gilliam didn't claim on appeal that he was innocent because he didn't know the gun was loaded, or anything to do any of the "particulars."

Yeah because that’s not how criminal appeals work.

He appealled on a "technicality" - trying to overturn the conviction based on a due process claim, not on the merits of the facts of his case.

All appeals are based on technicalities. You have to argue the conviction was defective in some manner, you really can’t argue at appeal that you are innocent, once you’re guilty you have to show the conviction was defective and ask for a new trial

But look at you, now trying to super analyze clear case law to argue why Alec Baldwin gets to kill people with impunity. Very cute

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Yeah because that’s not how criminal appeals work.

Now you're getting it.

All appeals are based on technicalities. You have to argue the conviction was defective in some manner, you really can’t argue at appeal that you are innocent, once you’re guilty you have to show the conviction was defective and ask for a new trial

This is mostly correct. Now think that through.

 

[justoneman]

He had a reasonable expectation that the firearm was not live and could not harm anyone.

You don't assume with guns. Ever.

 

[justoneman]

Which means absolutely nothing. Alec is on record as being antigun. He was merely following the normal protocols and trusted the experts in charge of making sure that the guns are safe that the gun handed to him was indeed safe.

The Rust set was absolutely NOT following the normal protocols. The armorer was not in the building where the gun was fired. The armorer is supposed to check and hand the gun to the actor. Instead, the assistant director handed the actor the gun.

Besides the lack of protocol not being followed: You never ever point a gun at someone unless you check the chamber. You certainly do not pull the hammer back.