https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4f7fba8fe0777c1b95b9


Do you think he will be convicted?
If so how much time will he serve?

I think the armorer definitely has problems if he is the idiot that loaded live rounds into that pistol. In fact, he's being undercharged if that is actually what happened. Baldwin has a better defense would be my guess unless there is some sort of evidence indicating that he knew or should have known there were live rounds in that pistol.

That said, it would not surprise me if he enters into a plea agreement with no jail time, probation only, just to avoid the risk.

I read that Baldwin as producer was aware the armorer had many on set safety violations.

Admissible evidence, or lack thereof...

Be that as it may, you are responsible for what you point your gun at.

If Baldwin was “practicing his fast draw” why did he have to point it at the director and camera?

I’ve done plenty of practice/dry fire…. Can’t recall a time I pointed it at a person.

We shouldn’t be giving passes to actors/actresses on gun safety. Heck, you hear about them going and training with top competitors with live fire.

As I see it, it’s supposed to be a culture of safety. The protocols exist, then the armorer checks, then the set guy checks, and then the actor. If it’s done right, no way it gets that far, and it would only occur when actually filming.

And if Baldwin knew of safety issues, while it doesn’t release the armorer of any responsibility, it certainly adds to his.

The guy is anti gun, he has no right to claim that he thought it was safe, as he’s one of these idiots that think the gun itself is going to kill someone.

How many times do you think Baldwin has pointed a gun at somebody on a movie set and pulled the trigger and nobody died or got hurt? There may be some more evidence that he should have been aware there was a safety problem on the set but I haven't seen any of it.

Here's the definition of criminal negligence which is one of the required elements of an involuntary manslaughter charge:

"A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Be that as it may, you are responsible for what you point your gun at.

If Baldwin was “practicing his fast draw” why did he have to point it at the director and camera?

I’ve done plenty of practice/dry fire…. Can’t recall a time I pointed it at a person.

We shouldn’t be giving passes to actors/actresses on gun safety. Heck, you hear about them going and training with top competitors with live fire.

As I see it, it’s supposed to be a culture of safety. The protocols exist, then the armorer checks, then the set guy checks, and then the actor. If it’s done right, no way it gets that far, and it would only occur when actually filming.

And if Baldwin knew of safety issues, while it doesn’t release the armorer of any responsibility, it certainly adds to his.

The guy is anti gun, he has no right to claim that he thought it was safe, as he’s one of these idiots that think the gun itself is going to kill someone.

Baldwin's primary problem at this point is his bullshit statement after the incident that he never pressed the trigger on the weapon. That is such an obvious and easily proven lie that a jury or factfinder may look at everything else he says as being suspect.

You'd think that somebody involved in as much litigation as that idiot would have known to keep his mouth shut.

-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

eh Mike

Point taken.

But, not true legally. I'm not defending Baldwin. Fuck that guy. But, legally, these charges seem defensible to me. But, I haven't seen the evidence that the Santa Fe DA has seen.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

eh Mike

Here's a hypothetical.

Let's say the weapon was an M4 loaded with a 30 round magazine.

Would it have been Baldwin's obligation to unload every round in that mag and inspect the ammo before he pressed the trigger on it during the scene?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
How many times do you think Baldwin has pointed a gun at somebody on a movie set and pulled the trigger and nobody died or got hurt? There may be some more evidence that he should have been aware there was a safety problem on the set but I haven't seen any of it.

Here's the definition of criminal negligence which is one of the required elements of an involuntary manslaughter charge:

"A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Be that as it may, you are responsible for what you point your gun at.

If Baldwin was “practicing his fast draw” why did he have to point it at the director and camera?

I’ve done plenty of practice/dry fire…. Can’t recall a time I pointed it at a person.

We shouldn’t be giving passes to actors/actresses on gun safety. Heck, you hear about them going and training with top competitors with live fire.

As I see it, it’s supposed to be a culture of safety. The protocols exist, then the armorer checks, then the set guy checks, and then the actor. If it’s done right, no way it gets that far, and it would only occur when actually filming.

And if Baldwin knew of safety issues, while it doesn’t release the armorer of any responsibility, it certainly adds to his.

The guy is anti gun, he has no right to claim that he thought it was safe, as he’s one of these idiots that think the gun itself is going to kill someone.

If you dry fire a firearm pointed at your neighbor isn't that cause for arrest even if it's not loaded?

This is a law school hypothetical.

The answer is not if the neighbor knew it was unloaded.

And, this fact scenario isn't applicable here.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
How many times do you think Baldwin has pointed a gun at somebody on a movie set and pulled the trigger and nobody died or got hurt? There may be some more evidence that he should have been aware there was a safety problem on the set but I haven't seen any of it.

Here's the definition of criminal negligence which is one of the required elements of an involuntary manslaughter charge:

"A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Be that as it may, you are responsible for what you point your gun at.

If Baldwin was “practicing his fast draw” why did he have to point it at the director and camera?

I’ve done plenty of practice/dry fire…. Can’t recall a time I pointed it at a person.

We shouldn’t be giving passes to actors/actresses on gun safety. Heck, you hear about them going and training with top competitors with live fire.

As I see it, it’s supposed to be a culture of safety. The protocols exist, then the armorer checks, then the set guy checks, and then the actor. If it’s done right, no way it gets that far, and it would only occur when actually filming.

And if Baldwin knew of safety issues, while it doesn’t release the armorer of any responsibility, it certainly adds to his.

The guy is anti gun, he has no right to claim that he thought it was safe, as he’s one of these idiots that think the gun itself is going to kill someone.

If you dry fire a firearm pointed at your neighbor isn't that cause for arrest even if it's not loaded?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
How many times do you think Baldwin has pointed a gun at somebody on a movie set and pulled the trigger and nobody died or got hurt? There may be some more evidence that he should have been aware there was a safety problem on the set but I haven't seen any of it.

Here's the definition of criminal negligence which is one of the required elements of an involuntary manslaughter charge:

"A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

Actually NM 30-2-3 Manslaughter:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A.----
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, OR in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner OR without due caution and circumspection.
...

If we are going to talk out of our asses on this we might as well speak the language that actually applies.

I'll start. Baldwin is going to meet "Karma" right here.

He should have been charged. I certainly believe he has liability. Who knows what jury will decide.

Due caution and circumspection to me would be not pointing a gun, loaded or not, at someone, unless necessary.

I grant that in acting it may be necessary and then all kinds of precautions need to be in place, and it’s incumbent on the individual involved to be certain it is so.

In this case, we were told he was practicing his fast draw for the scene; that the cameras were not rolling; and that usual protocols were not followed.

I grant that Baldwin has a defense… it’s logical… but it’s neither ironclad or passes muster in my opinion, mainly because as an actor using guns you should be held to a higher standard than the usual gun owner because your job involves pointing a potentially lethal weapon at other people.

As to your hypothetical re the M4 and 30 round magazine:

1. If the scene requires the gun going off with a blank, I’d check that the gun has a blank adaptor/bore obstruction.

If not requiring a shot,
1. The action should not be working, so only 1 round if it is visible in the scene, and yes, check it.

2. If there is no reason to have anything in the magazine, ie, the rifle is a prop, then nothing would be in the magazine, and I’d use a prop/fake mag.

If the gun is being used for off camera dry fire, no mag in the first place.

If it was being used with blanks, hell yes I would check each round. Been there, did that in ROTC. Each of us was responsible for our own weapon. The staff did a search for live ammo before we left, and before we started loading, and inspected our application of the blank devices. They inspected the ammo before they handed it to us as well, then the cadet officers checked also.

Actors are using weapons professionally. They are at a higher level of expectation than the general public.

The thing I find most amazing is that it took so damn long to investigate and bring charges in an event witnessed by dozens of people….

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Here's a hypothetical.

Let's say the weapon was an M4 loaded with a 30 round magazine.

Would it have been Baldwin's obligation to unload every round in that mag and inspect the ammo before he pressed the trigger on it during the scene?

IMO-
Yes
or at least be present WITH the person loading-
in order to verify the condition of the firearm and ammunition
as being in a non- lethal state

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
The thing I find most amazing is that it took so damn long to investigate and bring charges in an event witnessed by dozens of people….

Liberal Hollyweird privilege.

The controlling statute shows a clean route to a criminal conviction. The prosecutor has to prove in part:
1. Baldwin shot and killed the victim without malice.
2. Baldwin was acting in a movie production and pointing and firing a prop pistol at another.
3. Baldwin pulled the trigger
4. Baldwin fired the bullet into the victim and she died.

This is the basic outline of the proof required by the statute. Still have to prove where and when.

He unlawfully (without legal justification, such as self defense or defense of another) killed the victim, w/o malice. It occurred during the commission of a lawful act (filming a movie which involved shooting prop guns) said act was of a type that might produce death in an unlawful manner. Shooting prop guns at people “might produce death in an unlawful manner.” (Prop gun might have a real bullet or a “Brandon Lee” type incident is foreseeable, because it has happen. The fact that there are strict protocols with prop guns in the industry is proof that shooting prop guns “might produce death in an unlawful manner.”

I believe establishing Baldwin acted with “ordinary negligence” would be require and is easily met.

We need a New Mexico prosecutor or criminal defense attorney to jump in. Any case can be won and any case can be lost, but an experienced NM attorney would be great guidance.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Here's a hypothetical.

Let's say the weapon was an M4 loaded with a 30 round magazine.

Would it have been Baldwin's obligation to unload every round in that mag and inspect the ammo before he pressed the trigger on it during the scene?

IMO-
Yes
or at least be present WITH the person loading-
in order to verify the condition of the firearm and ammunition
as being in a non- lethal state

The armorer should have full control. The armorer should load, declare the situation safe. The actor should not change the condition of the firearm. We have went over this before. The armorer has control of the situation. The armrest is supposed to have the skill and knowledge. One does not want an untrained, unknowing actor changing the safe condition.

Here the armrest broke the rules and Baldwin may be responsible for knowing the armrest was breaking the rules in a position to stop it, and went along.

Would you want a child or uninitiated changing the condition of a firearm you just handed them. That is the same principle.

I agree if Baldwin knew the armed or had violated safety protocol w live ammunition earlier (that is what I read) the negligence requirement will be satisfied. Negligence is multi print with some prongs being a question of law while others are a question of fact.

quote:

Would you want a child or uninitiated changing the condition of a firearm you just handed them.

Yes, I would. Gun safety rules require that you check the loaded/unloaded condition of the gun yourself, when handed a firearm.

I taught my kids gun safety, and that was the first rule I taught them. The whole gun safety protocol begins when you're handed or pick up a gun.

Actors shouldn't play with real guns if they don't know gun safety.

We will have to agree to disagree. If I hand a child not use to firearms or an adult not use to firearms, no I do not want them with out me watching and instructing changing the condition of the firearm. The same for actors who we must assume do not know blanks from live rounds.

The industry assumption is actors are untrained, uneducated, and unknowledgeable to override the Armorer on set who is the expert and has full control.

Negligence is based on a reasonable person on the circumstances. This, industry standard becomes important.

The big problem for Baldwin is he is reported to have known or should have known this armed or had safety violations with live ammunition and as a person who is both a producer and actor did not act prudently with that information prior to this homicide.

A whole industry can be negligent. If the standard of care in the acting business is that actors can ignore gun safety, then the industry is negligent. Let Baldwin be their instruction.

That is the industry standard. Actors are not capable, competent, and instructed not to change the condition of the firearm.

Baldwin’s problem is he was aware or should have been aware of this armorer’s safety violations on set prior to this one.

If I hand an incompetent person (someone not trained, and uneducated with firearms) a firearm. I better not see them change its condition wo my instruction and oversight.

It is sad the worst fact patterns make the best law school exams.

This is why Baldwin is charged since he was a producer who allowed this person to keep breaking the rules until someone died.

https://www.latimes.com/entert...-crew-walked-off-set

day before the fatal shooting, Lane Luper, a camera assistant, emailed production manager Row Walters with three safety concerns on the set. Souza and Hutchins were copied on the email.

Among Luper’s concerns: the handling of weapons.

“During the filming of gunfights on this job things are often played very fast and loose,” Luper wrote. “So far there have been 2 accidental weapons discharges. … To be clear, there are NO safety meetings.”

Mendoza said the email from Luper shows the production’s “disregard” for safety and failure to meet industry standards.

Mendoza is the prosecutor.

Do you agree or disagree with my point that a whole industry can be negligent?

Yes a whole industry can be negligent. I do not agree the industry practice of an actor not changing the condition of a firearm on set controlled by the expert in charge (armorer) is negligent.

The prosecutor is not saying the industry as a whole was negligent. He said above this production which Baldwin has a controlling part in was negligent by not falling industry standards. See quote above.

There is one reason and one reason only that these loons are supportive of Baldwin’s prosecution: He’s a prominent liberal Democrat.

Every damn thing these loons see is shaped by the political lens they see the world through. It doesn’t matter if it is Covid, vaccinations or Baldwin’s prosecution.

He will be acquitted. I suspect the fucked up DA submitted to political pressure and her own desire for self aggrandizement from the rabid publicity that will follow. She will be exposed as a fool.

Or you will be exposed as a fool… The idiot killed someone, then claimed he never pulled the trigger.

In movies, actors point guns at others and pull the trigger all the time. That’s movies and that’s why you have armorers. Most actors don’t know jack shit about guns, nor should they.

And JDollar, it doesn’t matter what he claimed after the act.

Baldwin learned how to draw and sight that revolver. He should have learned about safe gun-handling as well.

Reading this I think there are valid points from both sides. In such a case its only correct that he face court and let the law decide.

Im not sure what exactly your laws are but over here we have manslaughter that can replace murder. its where the person never intended to kill, but a death happened none the less through negligence or mistake.
I would think that would apply in this case.

As I have said here before, had he not been such a rabid anti-gunner advocate, he might have learned the basic principles in gun safety, that we were all taught in our youth. EVERY GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED! Check it every time!

On the safe set,
only the armorer and assistant armorer load the firearms for the scene—no exceptions.
On the safe set,
if the scene requires dummy rounds, the armorer provides and loads them in front of the actor.
(these are called “shakers” as they have BB’s in them, no powder,no live primer.
The bb’s are to make noise when shaken- this audibly identifies a dummy round.)

They then dry fire the revolver pointed straight down, cycling through the complete cylinder.
They then hand the weapon to the actor and have the actor do the same thing, twice verifying the weapon is loaded only with dummies.
As soon as the director calls “cut” all weapons are immediately returned to the armorer,
before anything else happens.

But this is how a safe set is run;
seems clear that “Rust” was not run in a safe manner.

Who is responsible for a safe set?
Producer?
Director?
Actor?
Armorer?

How about they all are-


So-
Who is the producer?
Who is the director?
Who is the co-author?
Who is the actor that fired the revolver?


That would be - Alec Baldwin.

Has Baldwin handled firearms on sets before?
Has he produced and directed before?
Has he been involved in hiring/ firing before?
Was he involved in hiring /firing,organizing safety etc?


So
by the reasonable man standard-
he, Baldwin,
should he have known better.

And, particularly, should not have stated

‘ i didn’t fire the gun, i never pulled the trigger’.

Negligent Homicide , Involuntary Homicide, Voluntary Negligent Homicde
whichever term is correct in NM

Yes, his actions , fit this charge. - at least,

I don't agree that what he said about not pulling the trigger after the shooting has any bearing on his responsibility.

In the high stress aftermath, he might well have no recollection of pulling the trigger. Thus, he would not be lying.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
And JDollar, it doesn’t matter what he claimed after the act.

It doesn’t matter to you or to the legal system in NM and every other state?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Baldwin learned how to draw and sight that revolver. He should have learned about safe gun-handling as well.

He is not allowed to as the prosecutor said the issue is violation of industry safety procedures across the production that Baldwin as producer is aware of or should be aware of.
Violations that made a death foreseeable, approximate causation which is be an issue for the judge to decide as a question of law as to that factor. I know you know that. I am just saying for everyone else.

If you go up in a plane, and you are allowed the stick, you do not get to start overriding the actual pilot.

I thought he should be charged.

I am happy to let a jury decide his culpability.

If he’s found not guilty, he still violated every gun safety rule we are taught, but would not be culpable under the law.

So be it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I thought he should be charged.

I am happy to let a jury decide his culpability.

If he’s found not guilty, he still violated every gun safety rule we are taught, but would not be culpable under the law.

So be it.

+1 to the letter

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I don't agree that what he said about not pulling the trigger after the shooting has any bearing on his responsibility.

In the high stress aftermath, he might well have no recollection of pulling the trigger. Thus, he would not be lying.

He didn't say he had no recollection of it, he said he didn't pull the trigger. It goes to credibility.