• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Alec Baldwin guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Given what we know, is he guilty ?

  • Total voters
    61
MrNiceGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thinking here of the old saying... "if everyone else is jumping off a cliff would you". Baldwin's duty of care begins when that gun is handed to him for the scene. It was a real gun. He then must do what every person at a gun shop, a shooting range, a police station evidence lock up, even a museum where guns are on display. Baldwin needs to personally check that firearm. I know he doesn't know that, and still even now doesn't agree with it, but that does not change what his reasonbaly duty of care may be.


MrNiceGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reckless and negligence are two different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is reckless. Failing to get enough sleep and getting in the car and driving for hours is negligent.


MrNiceGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure you are being clear here, but I will repeat: It was in fact a real gun and I suspect the DA determined that Baldwin knew that before filing these charges just based off of Baldwin's likely comments. Remember, Baldwin claimed the gun malfunctioned. Why did he say that? If Baldwin believed that prop gun was NOT a real gun, was a prop that only looked like a gun but could never fire a projectile, then he would not have said what he said about this silly theory of the gun firing on it's own. Using inductive logic, we can conclude from that "theory of malfunction" by Baldwin, that he knew it was a real gun. This was not a situation where Baldwin had a reasonable assurance that this was a fake gun and then this happened. Under that kind of situation, they would consdier this an accident, one which Baldwin could not foresee. But he must have known it was real, and that makes his lack of care criminal negligence.

MrNiceGuy said:
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).
Click to expand...
You have to go by what New Mexico's criminal law on this says, not what we feel should be their laws. And that is always the gotcha for all of us. We may never be aware of all of the laws on the books in every jurisdiction which may place all of us in trouble, but most of us already know the easy ones. Like driving too fast in a school zone, texting while driving, leaving small children unsupervised around swimming pools, not securing our firearms in locked safes when we have small children, and not pointing guns at other people.
 
Super Chief said:
Thinking here of the old saying... "if everyone else is jumping off a cliff would you". Baldwin's duty of care begins when that gun is handed to him for the scene. It was a real gun. He then must do what every person at a gun shop, a shooting range, a police station evidence lock up, even a museum where guns are on display. Baldwin needs to personally check that firearm. I know he doesn't know that, and still even now doesn't agree with it, but that does not change what his reasonbaly duty of care may be.
Click to expand...
Duties and what constitute "reasonable care" change given the circumstances, which are different in this case, where you have an actor and a designated person who is supposed to be caring for the prop gun. This is not the same as a stranger or a friend just handing you a gun.

Also, it is not "reasonable care" -- it's "recklessness." That means it's not mere negligence that is the issue. Baldwin must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was reckless, which means he proceeded literally so unreasonably that it shows he was not giving a damn if there was a risk of death or great bodily harm.

Super Chief said:
Reckless and negligence are two different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is reckless. Failing to get enough sleep and getting in the car and driving for hours is negligent.
Click to expand...
Right, that's what I'm saying. And, Baldwin wasn't acting equivalently to drunk driving. Drunk driving is reckless because everyone knows that driving while drunk is (a) illegal, and (b) creates a very high increase in risk of death or great bodily harm such that a person who drives drunk "literally doesn't care" that he is creating that serious risk. The difference with Baldwin is that he is (a) not doing something illegal, and (b) did not create the risk nor did he have any knowledge that what was happening was creating a serious risk of harm - he had the opposite expectation and knowledge. So, he is moreso at the level of simple negligence, if even that.
Super Chief said:
Not sure you are being clear here, but I will repeat: It was in fact a real gun and I suspect the DA determined that Baldwin knew that before filing these charges just based off of Baldwin's likely comments. Remember, Baldwin claimed the gun malfunctioned. Why did he say that?
Click to expand...
Maybe because his recollection of the incident is that the gun "went off" and he doesn't recall pulling the trigger. He never denied it was a "real gun."
Super Chief said:
If Baldwin believed that prop gun was NOT a real gun, was a prop that only looked like a gun but could never fire a projectile, then he would not have said what he said about this silly theory of the gun firing on it's own.
Click to expand...
The fact of it being a real gun doesn't mean what Baldwin did was "reckless." By your own examples, you show why what he was doing was NOT reckless, even if it was negligent. Refer to your example of recklessness - drunk driving - he was not doing something equivalent to drunk driving (illegal) and he did not know what a drunk driver knows (that his wrongful conduct is causing a great risk of death).
Super Chief said:
Using inductive logic, we can conclude from that "theory of malfunction" by Baldwin, that he knew it was a real gun.
Click to expand...
He could still have thought it was a prop gun, and that it "somehow went off" causing him a that time to realize it was a real gun. But I haven't heard he thought it was a toy or a non-functioning prop at all. My understanding, and my analysis, is based on him knowing it is a real gun.
 
.
Super Chief said:
This was not a situation where Baldwin had a reasonable assurance that this was a fake gun and then this happened. Under that kind of situation, they would consdier this an accident, one which Baldwin could not foresee. But he must have known it was real, and that makes his lack of care criminal negligence.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't - because CRIMINAL negligence, as opposed to simple negligence, is recklessness with a wilful disregard for safety - i.e., doing something knowing that one is putting another person at significant risk. Civil negligence means a person failed to exercise reasonable care in their actions. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, typically involves a negligent act that is so egregious, it's likely to result in the risk of death or serious bodily harm. Why would Baldwin think that someone handing him a gun as a prop in a scene was "likely to result in the risk of death or serious bodily harm." This kind of thing has hardly ever happened before. I am aware of one incident in 1984 where an actor died as a result of playing Russian Roullette with a gun that had a blank loaded into it, and then The Crow where Brandon Lee was shot because a bullet was accidentally left in the gun, and now Alec Baldwin. On the other hand, there have been a total of 37 deaths in Hollywood and Television accidents in like the last 100+ years, and 24 of them were from helicopter accidents. That would seem to make, based on your logic, the use of helicopters on a movie set that causes death to be involuntary manslaughter by definition.
Super Chief said:
You have to go by what New Mexico's criminal law on this says, not what we feel should be their laws.
Click to expand...
That's what I believe I'm doing
Super Chief said:
And that is always the gotcha for all of us. We may never be aware of all of the laws on the books in every jurisdiction which may place all of us in trouble, but most of us already know the easy ones. Like driving too fast in a school zone, texting while driving, leaving small children unsupervised around swimming pools, not securing our firearms in locked safes when we have small children, and not pointing guns at other people.
Click to expand...
Actors routinely point guns at other people in the course of filming.
 
redbeer said:
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?
Click to expand...
Red Herring.

Answer my question then we can address your ridiculous assumption.

I asked you:
Then you know that a gun that is not loaded is not loaded?
Click to expand...
 
justoneman said:
George Clooney disagrees with that statement.

Click to expand...

No. Clooney did NOT disagree with that... he added extra layers of checking that he does. Huger difference.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's NO reason whatsoever to point that gun at another human being, period......especially on a movie set......camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.
 
Bodi said:
Red Herring.

Answer my question then we can address your ridiculous assumption.

I asked you:
Click to expand...

The only way I will know a gun is NOT loaded is only after I fully checked the gun for myself......and once I knew it was unloaded, that gun while I hold it will never under any circumstances be pointed toward another person......is this too hard for you to grasp?......seriously, this is basic understanding similar to 1 plus 1 = 2.......jeesh!!
 
redbeer said:
The only way I will know a gun is NOT loaded is only after I fully checked the gun for myself......and once I knew it was unloaded, that gun while I hold it will never under any circumstances be pointed toward another person......is this too hard for you to grasp?......seriously, this is basic understanding similar to 1 plus 1 = 2.......jeesh!!
Click to expand...
You are backtracking... I asked you:

How is a gun always loaded if the gun is not loaded?
 
Bodi said:
You are backtracking... I asked you:

How is a gun always loaded if the gun is not loaded?
Click to expand...

Wow, unreal....lol. Please never purchase, borrow, or use a gun for all of our sakes.
 
trouble13 said:
Yes it would be but it is his responsibility to check the gun before pulling the trigger. Imo that's on him, nobody else
Click to expand...
Exactly what is he supposed to check? After all the gun is supposed to be loaded even if just with blanks. Can you show haw an easy check without undoing the whole loading would show that they were blanks. This is your assertion that his checking could have made the difference so you need to support it.
 
trouble13 said:
Are you saying that you believe he did not realize the gun was capable of firing bullets do he didn't guilty and that you believe the gun could of went off by itself even though it was in his hand at the time?
Click to expand...
IIRC a subsequent inspection of the gun found it not working properly. So a firing without the pulling of the trigger was possible.
 
JMB802 said:
LOL, no.

I asked you why he shouldn't have been able to assume the gun was a prop. You declared it was his responsibility because he didn't check if it was a real gun.
Click to expand...
Typically the guns are real if they have to do certain things. If they are just for show or hold, such as point but don't shoot, then they are non firing props.
 
Mr Person said:
Yet you asked whether we think he should be convicted here. How could we possibly judge? The evidence has not been introduced. We can blab about our feelings about it, but nobody should be saying he should be convicted.
Click to expand...
With all fairness he asked if anyone would at this point, not whether he should be convicted.
 
maquiscat said:
Exactly what is he supposed to check? After all the gun is supposed to be loaded even if just with blanks. Can you show haw an easy check without undoing the whole loading would show that they were blanks. This is your assertion that his checking could have made the difference so you need to support it.
Click to expand...
He should have checked to see if the gun was loaded with bullets before accepting the gun.
 
trouble13 said:
I thought an assistant gave him the gun but in either case the answer is the same here. You check the weapon before firing it.
Click to expand...

Oops. Please don't shoot me.

According to the affidavit, Baldwin was handed one of three prop guns by assistant director David Halls that were set up in a cart by an armorer for the movie “Rust.”

CNN
 
justoneman said:
I see nothing in your article about live rounds sitting on the cart. Do you have a link to support your claim?

"There were so many live bullets just sitting there amongst the dummy ones on the cart"
Click to expand...

There were multiple live rounds on set amongst the dummy rounds found by the FBI. It's all in the legal documents.
 
Josie said:
There were multiple live rounds on set amongst the dummy rounds found by the FBI. It's all in the legal documents.
Click to expand...
You said there were live rounds on the cart. What you said was not true.
 
trouble13 said:
If you were on the jury would you convict him?
Click to expand...
Baldwin is guilty of hiring the wrong armorer.

If that makes him guilty of manslaughter then every gun dealer who sold to the wrong person is as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom