Alec Baldwin to be charged with Involuntary manslaughter

#8
#8
I'm actually rather interested in how the prosecution and defense intersect. I'm certain Baldwin's defense is going to be some form of

"Look, he's an actor on a set with a prop. There are literally, literally people there paid for the express and unambighous purpose of handling the safety aspects of the props used and it's not the actors. Mr Baldwin wasn't handed a firearm by some guy and made a bad assumption on it being loaded. In fact there should not have been any live ammunition on that set to begin with, much less have professional armorers completely fail to ascertain if that was the case before allowing an actor to shoot a scene with a live weapon. It's a completely unreasonable onus. "

Whoever was in fact the armorer that cleared that weapon for the scene is probably screwed and just looking for some kind of plea deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKT_VOL and jp1
#9
#9
hndog609 said:
I'm actually rather interested in how the prosecution and defense intersect. I'm certain Baldwin's defense is going to be some form of

"Look, he's an actor on a set with a prop. There are literally, literally people there paid for the express and unambighous purpose of handling the safety aspects of the props used and it's not the actors. Mr Baldwin wasn't handed a firearm by some guy and made a bad assumption on it being loaded. In fact there should not have been any live ammunition on that set to begin with, much less have professional armorers completely fail to ascertain if that was the case before allowing an actor to shoot a scene with a live weapon. It's a completely unreasonable onus. "

Whoever was in fact the armorer that cleared that weapon for the scene is probably screwed and just looking for some kind of plea deal.
Click to expand...

Nice opening statement
 
#12
#12
hndog609 said:
I'm actually rather interested in how the prosecution and defense intersect. I'm certain Baldwin's defense is going to be some form of

"Look, he's an actor on a set with a prop. There are literally, literally people there paid for the express and unambighous purpose of handling the safety aspects of the props used and it's not the actors. Mr Baldwin wasn't handed a firearm by some guy and made a bad assumption on it being loaded. In fact there should not have been any live ammunition on that set to begin with, much less have professional armorers completely fail to ascertain if that was the case before allowing an actor to shoot a scene with a live weapon. It's a completely unreasonable onus. "

Whoever was in fact the armorer that cleared that weapon for the scene is probably screwed and just looking for some kind of plea deal.
Click to expand...
Except I dont think they were doing a scene when it happened, how else would two people get hit?

Secondly, the part about the intersection is good because I think the prosecutor will bring up that Baldwin was also responsible for hiring the armourer and as a director or producer was also generally in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#14
#14
LouderVol said:
Except I dont think they were doing a scene when it happened, how else would two people get hit?

Secondly, the part about the intersection is good because I think the prosecutor will bring up that Baldwin was also responsible for hiring the armourer and as a director or producer was also generally in charge.
Click to expand...

To the first part it was during a rehearsal for a scene.

To the 2nd part I absolutely agree that's a part of it, especially when this becomes a civil suit. There were noted rumors about the Rust set having a number of issues which could lead to a sort of, in college sports parlance, "lack of institutional control". I'm uncertain how NM law would charge that aspect criminally. Culpability could be established but to reach the threshold of manslaughter? I don't know. In any case it's going to be interesting.
 
#15
#15
LouderVol said:
Except I dont think they were doing a scene when it happened, how else would two people get hit?

Secondly, the part about the intersection is good because I think the prosecutor will bring up that Baldwin was also responsible for hiring the armourer and as a director or producer was also generally in charge.
Click to expand...

It's either that charge or criminal negligence. Has to be something. In the work place, management can be charged with criminal negligence in certain circumstances involving bodily harm injuries, among others.
 
#16
#16
GVF said:
It's either that charge or criminal negligence. Has to be something. In the work place, management can be charged with criminal negligence in certain circumstances involving bodily harm injuries, among others.
Click to expand...
But an actor? And not the propmaster? How about civil restitution for wrongful death? The damn media conglomerate?
 
#17
#17
GVF said:
It's either that charge or criminal negligence. Has to be something. In the work place, management can be charged with criminal negligence in certain circumstances involving bodily harm injuries, among others.
Click to expand...

I have no real idea of what the state specific laws are that are the guideposts in this case but "conceptually" this feels a lot more like something that would be called "criminal negligence". Baldwin is a pompous ass hat but I dont see how this rises to what is considered a manslaughter crime. It was clearly an accident that derived from negligence so profound as should have some criminal liability (as well as massive civil). He, as head of the project and responsible for a number of actions that led to the FUP, including pulling the trigger, should have that criminal liability and share with others in the chain of events.

Btw - even if someone else had pulled the trigger to the same effect, Baldwin would still be criminally negligent IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#18
#18
Baldwin's attorney says that they will win this case, so we will see...
,” Luke Nikas, Baldwin’s attorney, said. “He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”
 
#19
#19
Gandalf said:
I have no real idea of what the state specific laws are that are the guideposts in this case but "conceptually" this feels a lot more like something that would be called "criminal negligence". Baldwin is a pompous ass hat but I dont see how this rises to what is considered a manslaughter crime. It was clearly an accident that derived from negligence so profound as should have some criminal liability (as well as massive civil). He, as head of the project and responsible for a number of actions that led to the FUP, including pulling the trigger, should have that criminal liability and share with others in the chain of events.

Btw - even if someone else had pulled the trigger to the same effect, Baldwin would still be criminally negligent IMO.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well.
 
#20
#20
hndog609 said:
To the first part it was during a rehearsal for a scene.

To the 2nd part I absolutely agree that's a part of it, especially when this becomes a civil suit. There were noted rumors about the Rust set having a number of issues which could lead to a sort of, in college sports parlance, "lack of institutional control". I'm uncertain how NM law would charge that aspect criminally. Culpability could be established but to reach the threshold of manslaughter? I don't know. In any case it's going to be interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I would need to read the specifics of how NM words the various layers. On the face it seems to fit, and I would think he has two layers of guilt which raises the possibility. The shooter, ultimately responsible, and the boss, indirectly.

The armourer would/should/could face similar charges. And their guilt didnt absolve any from Baldwin imo. Definite lack of intent, but thinking it's an unloaded prop doesnt remove any culpability imo, from either.

Negligent seems too lenient because there was a direct act, as well as lack of oversight.

I am just thinking about it at a gun range or something similar. Range Master hands you a gun and says its unloaded. You then take it, point it at some people, physics says it has to be pointing at someone, that RM is still tackling you, unloaded or not. And then after you point it at least two someone's, you pull the trigger, or somehow get it to go off. That is two direct actions Alec Baldwin didnt have to do, that have nothing to do with the armourer, that directly lead to the shooting.
 
#21
#21
hndog609 said:
I'm actually rather interested in how the prosecution and defense intersect. I'm certain Baldwin's defense is going to be some form of

"Look, he's an actor on a set with a prop. There are literally, literally people there paid for the express and unambighous purpose of handling the safety aspects of the props used and it's not the actors. Mr Baldwin wasn't handed a firearm by some guy and made a bad assumption on it being loaded. In fact there should not have been any live ammunition on that set to begin with, much less have professional armorers completely fail to ascertain if that was the case before allowing an actor to shoot a scene with a live weapon. It's a completely unreasonable onus. "

Whoever was in fact the armorer that cleared that weapon for the scene is probably screwed and just looking for some kind of plea deal.
Click to expand...

The problem for Baldwin using that argument is he was the Producer, he hired the armorer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and volfanhill
#22
#22
LouderVol said:
Yeah. I would need to read the specifics of how NM words the various layers. On the face it seems to fit, and I would think he has two layers of guilt which raises the possibility. The shooter, ultimately responsible, and the boss, indirectly.

The armourer would/should/could face similar charges. And their guilt didnt absolve any from Baldwin imo. Definite lack of intent, but thinking it's an unloaded prop doesnt remove any culpability imo, from either.

Negligent seems too lenient because there was a direct act, as well as lack of oversight.

I am just thinking about it at a gun range or something similar. Range Master hands you a gun and says its unloaded. You then take it, point it at some people, physics says it has to be pointing at someone, that RM is still tackling you, unloaded or not. And then after you point it at least two someone's, you pull the trigger, or somehow get it to go off. That is two direct actions Alec Baldwin didnt have to do, that have nothing to do with the armourer, that directly lead to the shooting.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem I see with that last part regarding the gun range analogy is this wasn't a gun range. Baldwin wasn't there to fire anything.* In fact being a rehearsal it will almost certainly be argued there wasn't even an expectation for there to be blanks. This wasn't about a "gun" in any real sense at all and even then there are people with the actual job of checking props and I'm sure we'll hear it often "Baldwin is an actor, not a set safety armorer.".

I really don't know how this is going to shake out as far as personal culpability is concerned. Depending on how NM law works it may end up plead down. I'm actually pretty curious. I think he's more exposed (at least from what I've read previously) in civil court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKT_VOL
#23
#23
LouderVol said:
Yeah. I would need to read the specifics of how NM words the various layers. On the face it seems to fit, and I would think he has two layers of guilt which raises the possibility. The shooter, ultimately responsible, and the boss, indirectly.

The armourer would/should/could face similar charges. And their guilt didnt absolve any from Baldwin imo. Definite lack of intent, but thinking it's an unloaded prop doesnt remove any culpability imo, from either.

Negligent seems too lenient because there was a direct act, as well as lack of oversight.

I am just thinking about it at a gun range or something similar. Range Master hands you a gun and says its unloaded. You then take it, point it at some people, physics says it has to be pointing at someone, that RM is still tackling you, unloaded or not. And then after you point it at least two someone's, you pull the trigger, or somehow get it to go off. That is two direct actions Alec Baldwin didnt have to do, that have nothing to do with the armourer, that directly lead to the shooting.
Click to expand...

It was a single action revolver. There were 3 direct actions......
1) Point
2)Cock hammer
3) Pull trigger
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#24
#24
hndog609 said:
The biggest problem I see with that last part regarding the gun range analogy is this wasn't a gun range. Baldwin wasn't there to fire anything.* In fact being a rehearsal it will almost certainly be argued there wasn't even an expectation for there to be blanks. This wasn't about a "gun" in any real sense at all and even then there are people with the actual job of checking props and I'm sure we'll hear it often "Baldwin is an actor, not a set safety armorer.".

I really don't know how this is going to shake out as far as personal culpability is concerned. Depending on how NM law works it may end up plead down. I'm actually pretty curious. I think he's more exposed (at least from what I've read previously) in civil court.
Click to expand...
Blanks still kill. I would really need the specifics to argue much more. If he was close to the two people, I would argue even a blank is dangerous. If there were on the otherside of the set, that's another.

The not there to fire anything argument doesnt hold water for me. You cant make that argument for an ordinary civilian. "I didnt mean to shoot anyone. I didnt know it was loaded." All of that would probably still be found guilty.
 
#25
#25
LouderVol said:
Blanks still kill. I would really need the specifics to argue much more. If he was close to the two people, I would argue even a blank is dangerous. If there were on the otherside of the set, that's another.

The not there to fire anything argument doesnt hold water for me. You cant make that argument for an ordinary civilian. "I didnt mean to shoot anyone. I didnt know it was loaded." All of that would probably still be found guilty.
Click to expand...

I'm just putting forth what to expect will be a large part of the defense IMO. (The civil suit as a producer will be another matter) Remains to be seen how much traction that might get with a jury.

I'll add that blanks have a very limited range for causing harm, much less lethality. At point blank (heh heh) range there is sill an expulsion (sort of like you don't really want a finger next to a cylinder gap on a magnum revolver) but without any real mass to speak of any energy dissipates very quickly.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top