Alec Baldwin going to be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter

[CL82]

You may think it should be, but it's not and that's why the charges were dropped. That's why the guy killed Brandon Lee wasn't charged.
They hire people to be responsible for the safety of the weapons on set. Establishing criminal negligence on an actor who relied on their expert is a stretch, and like I said previously, no actor should ever pick up a weapon on any set ever again if that were the case.

I absolutely do think it should be. That’s gun safety 101. If you were telling me that that isn’t a standard practice in the entertainment industry, I say again, it should be. That’s a different statement then whether Baldwin has criminal liability under New Mexico law.

I don’t know the standards in New Mexico and don’t care enough to think about it all that hard, but I suppose that there could be a case where, Baldwin, not in his capacity is an actor, but in his capacity, as an executive producer, took steps that jeopardized safety on the set. He further could have been made aware that there were safety issues on the sad due to the documented stated concerns by other people working on the film, and the resignations of people who were concerned about safety on the set. Further, if he was aware of a lack of background, prerequisites or capabilities in his armorer but hired her anyway then, I suppose, his failure to make sure the weapon was safe, knowing that background, might meet the requisite standard. He hired a relatively inexperienced person as amourer, and then pointed a gun directly at Hutchinson and pulled the trigger. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for a jury to conclude that he was aware of the risk of death and consciously disregarded it. They weren’t even filming. There was zero need for him to pull that trigger.

 

[CL82]

He will be held liable for what occurred but in a civil case for a wrongful death action. Money damages. This case in no way resembled a criminal case.

See my post above. I don’t think it’s quite that clear-cut given that Baldwin put in place the team that established safety protocols and pull the trigger. To the extent it can be shown, that what the protocols work, or who that the personnel he hired were inexperienced, then the act of pulling a trigger, add a random moment, could meet the standard you or someone else posted above.

 

[Merge]

I don’t know the standards in New Mexico and don’t care enough to think about it all that hard, but I suppose that there could be a case where, Baldwin, not in his capacity is an actor, but in his capacity, as an executive producer, took steps that jeopardized safety on the set.

And if that was the direction the prosecutors went, I'd see that argument. However, there were 12 producers and they only went after Baldwin.

If we learn new facts and they charge Baldwin, great. I don't really care for the guy.
I'm not going to argue that he can't possibly be guilty of a crime. There are plenty of possible theoretical scenarios where negligence could be proven. I am just commenting that based on the information the public is aware of, proving criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt was unrealistic.

 

[cernjSHU]

See my post above. I don’t think it’s quite that clear-cut given that Baldwin put in place the team that established safety protocols and pull the trigger. To the extent it can be shown, that what the protocols work, or who that the personnel he hired were inexperienced, then the act of pulling a trigger, add a random moment, could meet the standard you or someone else posted above.

You are confusing liability under civil law and whether someone can be convicted criminally. It is a common confusion. It is pretty clear cut that this was not a criminal case. What you described is great for a civil law suit. But this doesn’t cut the mustard criminally.

 

[CL82]

And if that was the direction the prosecutors went, I'd see that argument. However, there were 12 producers and they only went after Baldwin.

If we learn new facts and they charge Baldwin, great. I don't really care for the guy.
I'm not going to argue that he can't possibly be guilty of a crime. There are plenty of possible theoretical scenarios where negligence could be proven. I am just commenting that based on the information the public is aware of, proving criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt was unrealistic.

Arguably, only Baldwin would meet the elements of the standard by 1) having prior knowledge of lacks safety standards and 2) pointing a gun at another individual and pulling the trigger in conscious disregard of that risk. I while the other producers might’ve been aware of the risk, they didn’t act in conscious disregard of it.

You are confusing liability under civil law and whether someone can be convicted criminally. It is a common confusion. It is pretty clear cut that this was not a criminal case. What you described is great for a civil law suit. But this doesn’t cut the mustard criminally.

Don’t think so, since I used the standard in the jury instructions that you (I think) posted and applied the facts to them. Go back and reread them in my post and see if you still feel the same way.

Actually, it looks like those were New Jersey jury instructions. Here’s what you posted as the New Mexico law:
"Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Pointing a firearm at someone and pulling the trigger, would seem to meet that standard. As your quote above requires no particular state of mind, other than a lack of due caution and circumspection. Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Again, Baldwin seems to meet that standard.

 

[sussexcopirate]

People more upset on this thread about Alec Baldwin than little kids being massacred in our schools, says a lot.

 

[CL82]

People more upset on this thread about Alec Baldwin than little kids being massacred in our schools, says a lot.

Lol that’s random. Who exactly said that again?

 

[sussexcopirate]

Lol that’s random. Who exactly say that again?

Read the threads.

 

[CL82]

Read the threads.

I did I didn’t see anyone say that they cared more about Alex Baldwin, killing a woman than about little kids been killed in school. Did I miss that?

 

[sussexcopirate]

I did I didn’t see anyone say that they cared more about Alex Baldwin, killing a woman than about little kids been killed in school. Did I miss that?

No, nobody explicitly said that, read between the lines.

The thread on the kids shooting was quickly brushed aside bercause the usual comparisons to Chicago, gangs, etc while Alec Baldwin (a total idiot) is discussed ad nauseum, weird.

 

[CL82]

No, nobody explicitly said that, read between the lines.

The thread on the kids shooting was quickly brushed aside bercause the usual comparisons to Chicago, gangs, etc while Alec Baldwin (a total idiot) is discussed ad nauseum, weird.

Oh, no one actually said it. You just imagined it. Got it.

(You might want to google what a strawman argument is.)

 

[sussexcopirate]

Oh, no one actually said it. You just imagined it. Got it.

(You might want to google what a strawman argument is.)

I'm sorry you can't recognize the different approach to each situation by posters. I can't help you there.

 

[CL82]

I'm sorry you can't recognize the different approach to each situation by posters. I can't help you there.

I’m sorry you can’t distinguish between your imagination and reality. Actually, I’m not. It’s kind of funny.

 

[sussexcopirate]

I’m sorry you can’t distinguish between your imagination and reality. Actually, I’m not. It’s kind of funny.

🤣👍

 

[Merge]

Arguably, only Baldwin would meet the elements of the standard by 1) having prior knowledge of lacks safety standards and 2) pointing a gun at another individual and pulling the trigger in conscious disregard of that risk. I while the other producers might’ve been aware of the risk, they didn’t act in conscious disregard of it.

Yes, he is the one who pulled the trigger but your argument was that he “took steps to jeopardize safety” as a producer.

That either applies to the other producers or it’s not really that relevant in the eyes of the prosecutors. Given they didn’t go after any other producer, I don’t believe they think the “environment” argument holds up. It doesn’t take direct involvement to create legal liability in regards to a safe work environment.

Pointing a firearm at someone and pulling the trigger, would seem to meet that standard.

If it were not a movie set where a director announced the gun were “cold” right beforehand, I’d agree.

 

[CL82]

Yes, he is the one who pulled the trigger but your argument was that he “took steps to jeopardize safety” as a producer.

That either applies to the other producers or it’s not really that relevant in the eyes of the prosecutors. Given they didn’t go after any other producer, I don’t believe they think the “environment” argument holds up. It doesn’t take direct involvement to create legal liability in regards to a safe work environment.



If it were not a movie set where a director announced the gun were “cold” right beforehand, I’d agree.

Assuming that this is the New Mexico law:
"Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter [unlawful killing of a human being without malice] committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection, Baldwin would be the only one who meets that standard since he’s the only person who actually killed her. Whether the other executive producers would be civilly liable is a different question. They might be depending on the facts.

The gun being announced as cold is certainly a potential mitigating factor, but if Baldwin was aware that there were lax safety standards or that the people hired and did not have an adequate background for the job of weapon safety (the armorers résumé is pretty thin), etc., it might not be.

The thing that makes this case different than prior acting shooting cases is that Baldwin had a hand in putting in place how safety was established on the set. That makes it tough for him to use the insufficiency of those protocols as a defense.

 

[cernjSHU]

Assuming that this is the New Mexico law:
"Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter [unlawful killing of a human being without malice] committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection, Baldwin would be the only one who meets that standard since he’s the only person who actually killed her. Whether the other executive producers would be civilly liable is a different question. They might be depending on the facts.

The gun being announced as cold is certainly a potential mitigating factor, but if Baldwin was aware that there were lax safety standards or that the people hired and did not have an adequate background for the job of weapon safety (the armorers résumé is pretty thin), etc., it might not be.

The thing that makes this case different than prior acting shooting cases is that Baldwin had a hand in putting in place how safety was established on the set. That makes it tough for him to use the insufficiency of those protocols as a defense.

You are not understanding. There is also a causation element that would be included in the jury instructions. The fact that someone said it was a cold gun is an intervening event that breaks causation.

Moreover, this must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no criminal case here. No good prosecutor would have indicted Baldwin because this is a tragic accident and not criminal.

 

[Hall-O-Daze]

baldwin and matthew broderick gonna be chillin’ like villains together. Two peas in a pod. Different tiers of justice for the rich and famous. Zero accountability and no remorse. The recent Cronenberg film, Infinity Pool, nailed it: if you have enough money, you can get out of it again and again and again and…..

 

[Merge]

The gun being announced as cold is certainly a potential mitigating factor

Potential? It's fairly significant.

if Baldwin was aware that there were lax safety standards or that the people hired and did not have an adequate background for the job of weapon safety (the armorers résumé is pretty thin), etc., it might not be.

Every armorer's resume was thin at one point. That doesn't mean any accident that occurs on a set which is the 1st (or in this case 2nd) time the lead armorer is in that role would bear criminal liability.

You're making some big leaps with the "if he was aware" stuff though. Like I said, if there is some evidence that Baldwin is on an e-mail or something saying, "F safety - we need to get the movie done" lock him up. Short of that, it seems like you're just making up ways where he could be found guilty based on facts we don't know.

 

[Merge]

baldwin and matthew broderick gonna be chillin’ like villains together.

Broderick? That was 35 years ago... What an odd thing to bring up.

Thousands of people are killed in car accidents each year. Some of them are just that, accidents, which do not result in criminal charges.

 

[Hall-O-Daze]

Broderick? That was 35 years ago... What an odd thing to bring up.

Thousands of people are killed in car accidents each year. Some of them are just that, accidents, which do not result in criminal charges.

I mean….really?

Driving on the wrong side of the road is a bit more than a simple accident. Not to mention no drug or sobriety test was administered. Would it have gone down that way if he wasn’t a celebrity? C’mon, don’t be intellectually dishonest - you’re better than that.

I brought it up because they are both obvious examples of famous actors getting treated differently by the justice system, after they caused death and grave injury. It’s not that complicated, is it? Both took no personal responsibility and both showed next to no remorse. They were both more worried about their own hide than the loss of human life. That’s pretty morally reprehensible, if you ask me. This is a forum for a Catholic University, isn’t it? broderick even had the nerve to do a car commercial some years later. Also, the family of the mother and daughter he killed have yet to hear from him. Sound familiar?

I thought it was a very apt example to bring up but, then again, I accept what is blatantly obvious to some is not to others. Whatever.

 

[CL82]

You are not understanding. There is also a causation element that would be included in the jury instructions. The fact that someone said it was a cold gun is an intervening event that breaks causation.

Moreover, this must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no criminal case here. No good prosecutor would have indicted Baldwin because this is a tragic accident and not criminal.

Causation, let’s see uh… he shot her and she died. (Checks box). The fact that “someone said the gun was cold and doesn’t change that, particularly if Baldwin was aware that there were safety issues on set, and he was, or if he was aware of the very thin qualifications of the armorer. (Serious question, does reliance on an assertion by the Director that it was a cold gun actually “break causation” or is it just evidence of state of mind? Remember, he doesn’t need to intend to shoot her for involuntary manslaughter.)

Potential? It's fairly significant.



Every armorer's resume was thin at one point. That doesn't mean any accident that occurs on a set which is the 1st (or in this case 2nd) time the lead armorer is in that role would bear criminal liability.

You're making some big leaps with the "if he was aware" stuff though. Like I said, if there is some evidence that Baldwin is on an e-mail or something saying, "F safety - we need to get the movie done" lock him up. Short of that, it seems like you're just making up ways where he could be found guilty based on facts we don't know.

Well… yeah. I am not constructing the prosecution’s case for them, I’m just responding to the notion that somehow it’s impossible for Baldwin to be found guilty. It’s clearly not under the statute that was posted here. That’s not the same as stating it’s a certainty that he will be convicted.

(And yes, every armorers résumé is thin at one point, that’s why they work as an assistant until they build up more experience. This woman’s strongest résumé point appears to be that her father was a well known armorer.)

 

[Merge]

Driving on the wrong side of the road is a bit more than a simple accident. Not to mention no drug or sobriety test was administered. Would it have gone down that way if he wasn’t a celebrity? C’mon, don’t be intellectually dishonest - you’re better than that.

You're leaving out the fact that it was in Ireland where they do happen to drive on the wrong side of the road, it was right after a downpour and also right after he talked to a police officer looking for directions.
There were no indications that he was not sober, so you're just making that up and convicting him just because he is a celebrity.

I brought it up because they are both obvious examples of famous actors getting treated differently by the justice system

That's just not true in these cases though. Accidents happen and they should not carry criminal liability if you are a celebrity or not if the event was truly an accident.

 

[Hall-O-Daze]

You're leaving out the fact that it was in Ireland where they do happen to drive on the wrong side of the road, it was right after a downpour and also right after he talked to a police officer looking for directions.
There were no indications that he was not sober, so you're just making that up and convicting him just because he is a celebrity.



That's just not true in these cases though. Accidents happen and they should not carry criminal liability if you are a celebrity or not if the event was truly an accident.

Uh, usually when there is a traffic accident resulting in death(in this case, multiple deaths), blood and alcohol tests are taken, ASAP.

Clearly, broderick was given a break. Driving on the wrong side of the road would be more than enough of an indicator to at least administer a test, no? If you caused a traffic accident which resulted in multiple deaths, you can bet your bottom dollar you are going to be tested. Are you suggesting you wouldn‘t? It was in Northern Ireland, but I left that out because driving on the wrong side of the road is still driving on the wrong side of the road, isn’t it? That’s the reason it happened, it’s not an excuse.

I could just as easily say that you are bending over backwards to exonerate him because he is a celebrity. See how that works?

Yes, accidents happen, and I try hard not to jump to conclusions, but the behavior of both afterwards is very telling. It was only then that I made up my mind about what was really going on.

PS it was telling that you said “where they happen to drive on the wrong side of the road”. Over there, it’s not the wrong side of the road. It’s the correct side. Shows your bias. In truth, he was the one on the wrong side. I can’t have this discussion with you if you can’t even be honest about that.

 

[Merge]

Uh, usually when there is a traffic accident resulting in death(in this case, multiple deaths), blood and alcohol tests are taken, ASAP.

Given the extent of his own injuries, it would but done at the hospital, and that is where the tests were performed and there were no indication of intoxication.

Clearly, broderick was given a break. Driving on the wrong side of the road would be more than enough of an indicator to at least administer a test, no? If you caused a traffic accident which resulted in multiple deaths, you can bet your bottom dollar you are going to be tested. Are you suggesting you wouldn‘t? It was in Northern Ireland, but I left that out because driving on the wrong side of the road is still driving on the wrong side of the road, isn’t it? That’s the reason it happened, it’s not an excuse.

Yes, I would be tested. He was as well.

I am not making an excuse for him driving on the wrong side in Ireland. I am adding context as to why someone who is not used to driving on the correct side in Ireland could make that mistake...

I could just as easily say that you are bending over backwards to exonerate him because he is a celebrity. See how that works?

I'm not doing anything. Just thought it was odd to bring up a 30+ year old story.

 

[cernjSHU]

Uh, usually when there is a traffic accident resulting in death(in this case, multiple deaths), blood and alcohol tests are taken, ASAP.

Clearly, broderick was given a break. Driving on the wrong side of the road would be more than enough of an indicator to at least administer a test, no? If you caused a traffic accident which resulted in multiple deaths, you can bet your bottom dollar you are going to be tested. Are you suggesting you wouldn‘t? It was in Northern Ireland, but I left that out because driving on the wrong side of the road is still driving on the wrong side of the road, isn’t it? That’s the reason it happened, it’s not an excuse.

I could just as easily say that you are bending over backwards to exonerate him because he is a celebrity. See how that works?

Yes, accidents happen, and I try hard not to jump to conclusions, but the behavior of both afterwards is very telling. It was only then that I made up my mind about what was really going on.

PS it was telling that you said “where they happen to drive on the wrong side of the road”. Over there, it’s not the wrong side of the road. It’s the correct side. Shows your bias. In truth, he was the one on the wrong side. I can’t have this discussion with you if you can’t even be honest about that.

The problem with you is that you think you know what you are talking about and you don’t. The crash had it occurred in the US, blood tests and breathalyzer tests are not automatically done. There has to be articulable suspicion that someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If not, then it can’t be done by the police. Or if done l, the tests results would get suppressed. So the cops have to smell alcohol, or witness the driver slur words, be unbalanced etc. you are just factually and legally incorrect.