Is Alec Baldwin guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

[redbeer]

This is why we need registries... so that the moment you presented your ID the Gun Seller would Red Flag you and kick you out of the store.

Learn how to handle guns please and then take a course in reading for comprehension.

Been trained well on gun safety, care, and use....but tks for your concern.

 

[Questerr]

You don't assume with guns. Ever.

Actors do all the time. They have to trust the armorers know what they’re doing.

 

[Josie]

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.

There were so many live bullets just sitting there amongst the dummy ones on the cart. Absolutely reckless and dangerous.

 

[Josie]

Actors do all the time. They have to trust the armorers know what they’re doing.

No, they don't have to. Some (like in this case) cannot be trusted.

 

[justoneman]

Actors do all the time. They have to trust the armorers know what they’re doing.

The actor/producer, Alec Baldwin, did not allow the armorer into the building, infact the armorer did not even know there was supposed to be any gun use in that building at the time. Instead Alec Baldwin the producer allowed the assistant director to hand him the gun instead of an armorer.

 

[justoneman]

There were so many live bullets just sitting there amongst the dummy ones on the cart. Absolutely reckless and dangerous.

Do you have a link to this? I am not aware of live rounds found on the cart.

 

[Bodi]

Been trained well on gun safety, care, and use....but tks for your concern.

Then you know that a gun that is not loaded is not loaded?

 

[Atomic Kid]

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.

You can repeat yourself till you're blue in the face for all I care but what the film industry's standards and practices are indeed going to matter. That actor who was on the Rust set is just one example of the multitude of witnesses and experts Mr Baldwin's lawyer will be bringing in to testify about how what Baldwin did was nothing out of the ordinary. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that New Mexico has no statutes or regulations in place that govern film production standards and practices and like most other states, and even the federal government for that matter leave it up to the film production companies develop their own rules. What the rest of us do out in the real world doesn't really apply here. A Hollywood film sert is very unique work environment that operates outside of norms of reality. It's not real. In real life you can't go around pointing guns at people, or drive your car at insanely high speeds through the bustling streets, or go around blowing up shit and come out of it totally unscathed. That only happens in Hollywood.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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.

If that is the case and it's not clear that it is, then it falls on the assistant director. He was the one running the show there, not Baldwin. Also can you not read? Are your ears and eyes in some way defective? That's a veteran actor with decades of experience saying he has never once seen an actor check a gun and stated that the standard in the industry is that they are prohibited from doing so.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The actor/producer, Alec Baldwin, did not allow the armorer into the building, infact the armorer did not even know there was supposed to be any gun use in that building at the time. Instead Alec Baldwin the producer allowed the assistant director to hand him the gun instead of an armorer.

That is statement is clearly false. Baldwin had nothing whatsoever to do with the Armorer being there or not being there. It's her job to be there.

 

[justoneman]

If that is the case and it's not clear that it is, then it falls on the assistant director. He was the one running the show there, not Baldwin. Also can you not read? Are your ears and eyes in some way defective? That's aveteran actor with decades of experience saying he has never once seen an actor check a gun and state that the standard in the industry is that they are prohibited from doing so.

He was just given a plea deal to a lesser charge. Baldwin pulled the trigger and the guy who handed the gun to him declaring it was a cold gun has already gotten off of any meaningful charge. Baldwin is going down.

 

[justoneman]

That is statement is clearly false. Baldwin had nothing whatsoever to do with the Armorer being there or not being there. It's her job to be there.

My statement is dead on accurate.

 

[Atomic Kid]

My statement is dead on accurate.

Prove it then.

 

[Super Chief]

I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments in this article - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ast-alec-baldwin-criminal-lawyers-s-rcna66762

I don't believe in a justice system based on "if someone died, there must be someone punished."

It depends on how the death occurred. Clearly we are going to punish murderers, but we must also punish gross criminal negligence too.

A mother wantonly leaves her child in a hot car while she has her nails done; yeah, we punish for that.

Criminal responsibility, in my view, should still require a criminal mens rea - or mental state - that renders an act criminal.

I think you are confused on the meaning of that. The mens rea is indicated by a guilty state of mind when conduct is either:

purposely- a conscious act, also called specific intent.
knowingly- certainty that an act will cause the result in question. Intent is implied by the nature of the act.
recklessly- disregarded unjustified risk. like drunk driving
OR
negligently- unaware of the risk, but should be aware of the risk, as in pointing a real gun at somebody and pulling the trigger

I wouldn't want a justice system that jails someone for every fatal car accident.

We don't jail people for every fatal car accident, if it was an accident and not:
purposely
knowingly
recklessly
OR
negligently

People confuse accidental with negligent. Accidents are unfortunate unforeseen circumstances. You are driving your car and become confused by the road signs, and make a turn into the wrong lane and hit another car. That is an accident. But you are driving your car and texting, and make a turn into the wrong lane and hit another car. That is negligence.

The goal of a criminal justice system is not to exact pounds of flesh or seek vengeance, at least in my view - the goal is to deter and rehabilitate.

No, I disagree. The reason for a penal code is to punish offenders in a means which is flitting to the offense. Infraction, misdemeanor, or felony.

Jailing people over negligence doesn't do that. If someone is sooooo negligent that it gets into recklessness, where the person is creating a near certainty that someone is going to die or be severely injured, than that operates as the proper mens rea - like drinking 10 shots of tequila and then jumping in a car and driving home, or shooting arrows in the air over a crowd of people, etc.

I think you believe mens rea is only determined by one thing. As I already indicated, there are four levels of mens rea.

That doesn't seem to me to be the level of misconduct Baldwin is guilty of. IMO.

Mr Baldwin's criminal culpability is based on the mildest form of culpability. He failed to do something which a reasonable person under the same circumstances would know to do. Like not point a real gun at somebody and pull the trigger.

 

[Atomic Kid]

He was just given a plea deal to a lesser charge. Baldwin pulled the trigger and the guy who handed the gun to him declaring it was a cold gun has already gotten off of any meaningful charge. Baldwin is going down.

You don't think a jury isn't going to question why the man running the set and declared the gun as being "cold", as in unloaded and safe gets a slap on the wrist, but the man trusting his declaration and expertise is the one who is totally responsible for his ****up? You don't think the jury isn't also going to question why is it the state has no explanation to offer for how prohibited live rounds migrated their way onto the set? Baldwin has a good lawyer. The Mexico DA is going get her clock cleaned in court.

 

[justoneman]

Prove it then.

The attorney for "Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez, the daughter of long-time film industry armorer Thell Reed, released a statement Sunday in response to Baldwin's recent court filing, describing the rehearsal as "impromptu," and alleging that Gutierrez was not called inside the church to inspect the weapons before they were brought out. At the time, Gutierrez "had prop duties that she was forced to deal with," as production was "forcing her to take on more responsibilities for props," Jason Bowles, Gutierrez's attorney, said in the statement Sunday.

In addition, the "video village," the area around the monitor on set, was not operating on the day of the shooting, which "further prevented Hannah from knowing what was going on inside the Church," Bowles said.

The actor filed a motion to avoid financial responsibility in the shooting. https://abcn.ws/35RWW4U

 

[Atomic Kid]

The attorney for "Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez, the daughter of long-time film industry armorer Thell Reed, released a statement Sunday in response to Baldwin's recent court filing, describing the rehearsal as "impromptu," and alleging that Gutierrez was not called inside the church to inspect the weapons before they were brought out. At the time, Gutierrez "had prop duties that she was forced to deal with," as production was "forcing her to take on more responsibilities for props," Jason Bowles, Gutierrez's attorney, said in the statement Sunday.

You know what I don't see anywhere in there? That Baldwin "did not allow her" to be inside the church. As what you had claimed. So you're wrong. The decision to proceed with the test shot was assistant director's call. Not Baldwin's.

In addition, the "video village," the area around the monitor on set, was not operating on the day of the shooting, which "further prevented Hannah from knowing what was going on inside the Church," Bowles said.

Sounds to me like she has lots of excuses for not doing her job. And again Baldwin didn't "prevent" her or anyone else from doing their jobs.

 

[Atomic Kid]

It depends on how the death occurred. Clearly we are going to punish murderers, but we must also punish gross criminal negligence too.

A mother wantonly leaves her child in a hot car while she has her nails done; yeah, we punish for that.

Wantonly : done in reckless or callous disregard of or indifference to the rights of the plaintiff. Is that what you're likening Baldwin's conduct to? That's an absolutely ludicrous comparison.

I think you are confused on the meaning of that. The mens rea is indicated by a guilty state of mind when conduct is either:

purposely- a conscious act, also called specific intent.
knowingly- certainty that an act will cause the result in question. Intent is implied by the nature of the act.
recklessly- disregarded unjustified risk. like drunk driving
OR
negligently- unaware of the risk, but should be aware of the risk, as in pointing a real gun at somebody and pulling the trigger

Here are 4 levels of culpability (mens rea) as described by a law website.

• Intent: This is the explicit and conscious desire to commit a dangerous or illegal act. For example, if a person targets and assaults someone with the goal of inflicting harm on the victim, he/she is displaying criminal intent.
• Knowledge: This term applies if a person is aware that his or her actions will have certain results, but does not seem to care. For example, if a person violently lashes out at someone, inflicting harm may not be her primary goal. However, if he/she was aware that harm would be a predictable result of her actions, then he/she is guilty of having criminal knowledge.
• Recklessness: Recklessness is the decision to commit a certain action despite knowing about associated risks. For example, if a person causes injury while driving drunk, that person can be found guilty of recklessly causing harm. He did not intend to hurt anyone, and did not expect it to happen, but he knew he was taking the risk of hurting someone by driving while inebriated.
• Negligence: This is the mildest form of criminal culpability. A person commits negligence when he/she fails to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for his/her circumstances. For example, if a child is injured because his or her caretaker failed to perform her duties, she may be guilty of criminal negligence.

I think the first 3 are pretty much out and the last more dependent on the circumstances and the setting involved. Was Baldwin's behavior unreasonable given the setting and the circumstances under which it occurred? Not so sure about that as the setting and circumstances under which it occurred are rather unique. Was Baldwin's behavior an outlier in respect to the workplace setting in which it occurred. I would say very likely not.

 

[HK.227]

If you were on the jury would you convict him?

No, not at the moment.
I would need evidence that he knew it was a real gun and not just a prop. Until then his guilt is not established beyond resonable doubt.

The reasoning:
When you choose to pick up a real gun, operate heavy machinery, drive a car, fly an airplane, go for a walk with your pitbull, practice your knife throwing skills, or basically anything that endangers others if done in an unsafe manner, then you are responsible, regardless if you are untrained. You chose to do it, and are therefore responsible.

However, if you have hired an expert who has agreed to take your money in return for handling safety, then they are assuming responsibility on your behalf. This is of course
only the case as long as you actually follow their instructions conscientiously. If you choose not to do that, then it once again becomes a matter of your choosing to act in an unsafe manner and therefore becoming responsible.

 

[redbeer]

Then you know that a gun that is not loaded is not loaded?

So, in your opinion an unloaded gun is perfectly fine to point towards people, pull and squeeze the trigger, because after all, it's unloaded......correct?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Mr Baldwin's criminal culpability is based on the mildest form of culpability. He failed to do something which a reasonable person under the same circumstances would know to do. Like not point a real gun at somebody and pull the trigger.

One, I'm aware of the varying mental states for crime. Two, Baldwin was told to point the gun at the camera, and on movie sets it is not uncommon for actors to point the gun at people while acting. Three, criminal negligence is not just "causing death by failing to do something which a reasonable person under the circumstances would have known to do." That's civil negligence standard, and might support a judgment for money damages for wrongful death. But in every state I'm aware of "criminal" negligence is more like recklessness, which is much more extreme than mere negligence. So, to find him criminally responsible for involuntary manslaughter, the pointing of the gun at the cameraperson at the behest of the cameraperson, on an acting set, after having been assured the gun was not loaded by the person whose responsibility is to care for and ensure the safety of the props, is "reckless" conduct, which is proceeding in such an unreasonably dangerous fashion such as to evince a complete lack of care or concern as to whether harm would result.

I find it hard to believe Alec Baldwin did not have any care as to whether the gun was loaded and would kill someone. Sure, I can get behind a finding of civil negligence, maybe, but I do not see criminal negligence (aka recklessness).

 

[MrNiceGuy]

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

That's why I went on to say that the case turns on whether he was acting recklessly.

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

That's a different fact scenario than the one presented. The one presented is that a professional actor on a movie set for which they have gun prop people whose literal job it is to make sure the gun props are safe and secure, is handed what he fully expects to be a prop gun, and then does what he is told to do by the cameraperson (point the gun at the camera), is behaving in a criminal manner, reckless, with utter disregard for whether or not he's posing a danger to someone else.

……. 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

Well, if all it was was some guy at his house who is handed a gun by his friend and who then decides for no reason to point it at someone else and fire it, you have a stronger case, but that isn't what Alec Baldwin did here, now, is it?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So, in your opinion an unloaded gun is perfectly fine to point towards people, pull and squeeze the trigger, because after all, it's unloaded......correct?

By an actor on a movie set where the gun was maintained by a gun prop manager whose literal job it is to care for the gun, and then he points the gun at the camera because that is what he was told to do as part of the movie production? It's not reckless or particularly unreasonable, IMO.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

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.

Except, apparently on movie sets, the protocol is that the armory manager does that checking business, and the actor isn't supposed to do that. https://www.tmz.com/2023/01/20/rust-actor-douglas-stewart-gun-safety-alec-baldwin-charged/

 

[Pippi Longstock]

Actors do all the time. They have to trust the armorers know what they’re doing.

Alec handed his behind to someone else. He's an idiot.