Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

Baldwin was drunk? Maybe you are.

For now, I will just let you know that, despite your loud guarantees based on profound legal misunderstandings and errors that are set forth below, Baldwin WAS indeed charged with INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.

"Baldwin will not be charged with anything. Name the last time an actor was charged with careless use of a firearm while rehearsing on a film set, let alone anything more serious. This thread is for deluded uneducated fantasists. So many of you."

"It isn't your field of law - that explains it. Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence. Crimes require intent. There was no intent. He was in a scene rehearsal. Negligence requires a failure to observe a duty of care. The negligence wasn't his. He was given a firearm that he was assured was not armed."

"Involuntary manslaughter requires that he was breaking the law when the death occurred. Practising part in a film role does not constitute an unlawful act. Yet another drongo who thinks he has a grasp of the law."

"You don't know what involuntary manslaughter is. It isn't simply a mistake but a killing that results from breaking the law. Baldwin pointing a gun (that was declared to be unloaded) in the course of acting a film role was not breaking any law - otherwise innumerable actors have been in breach of the law when acting a role. Nor was it criminal negligence unless it was obvious there was a real risk of serious injury."

"You have no idea what intent means as a legal principle. Nor do you understand what is legally reckless or negligent and nor do you grasp that there are no facts known so far to adduce either might apply. You are so far out of your depth I can hear bubbles."

cnn.com

Alec Baldwin faces involuntary manslaughter charges in the 'Rust' shooting. Here's what that legal term means | CNN

Alaa Elassar

Prosecutors have decided to charge actor Alec Baldwin and the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, each with two counts of involuntary manslaughter after Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the set of the Western movi...

Link:www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/alec-baldwin...

This is from CNN. Read the full article above.

What does ‘involuntary manslaughter’ mean?
New Mexico state law classifies involuntary manslaughter as a fourth degree felony.
“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,” according to New Mexico law.
This means that the charges accuse Baldwin of committing a “negligent act that resulted in the death of another person,” Sam Winder, a former federal prosecutor who currently teaches law at the University of New Mexico, told CNN.
“The big difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder, often seen in cases involving firearms, is that there is no criminal intent,” Winder said, referring to New Mexico state law. “It’s unintentionally killing someone by being negligent.”
“There is no argument that Baldwin had the criminal intent to commit murder,” he added.

Shortly after announcing the involuntary manslaughter charges, Mary Carmack-Altwies, New Mexico’s first judicial district attorney, outlined why the on-set shooting could result in criminal charges regardless of whether it was an accident.
“Just because it is an accident doesn’t mean that it’s not criminal,” Carmack-Altwies told CNN.
“Our involuntary manslaughter statute covers unintentional killings, unintentional homicides,” Carmack-Altwies said. “Unintentional means they didn’t mean to do it, they didn’t have the intent to kill, but it happened anyway – and it happened because of more than mere negligence, because they didn’t exercise due caution or circumspection, and that’s what happened here.”

I hope this is a helpful def. of involuntary manslaughter.

Your excitement over what I say knows no bounds. You have news that Baldwin has been convicted?

As the judicial attorney said, it requires "more than mere negligence". It has to be in the order of gross negligence - "reckless, wanton and willful" is how "without due caution and circumspection" has been interpreted. That will be hard to prove when he was handed a gun that he was assured was safe by those whose responsibility it was to ensure that. Trusting that others will do their job doesn't easily fall into the category of "reckless, wanton and willful", or we would all be guilty of it.

Armstrong you are in over your head here. Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was “distracted and consistently talking on his cell phone” during gun training on the movie set.

Statement of Probable Cause in the Baldwin case. Now Armstrong can pretend to read it, and post all kind of idiotic legal errors and things that the Statement doesn't say. Then he and FlagPoll can pretend the Statement has a bunch of facts that, had they known earlier, would have change all their emphatic assertions that Baldwin would never be charged and only idiots could think he would be.

For normal people, it's an interesting legal analysis and poses the issue most of us knew was clear: "Whether guided by her directions or not, BALDWIN knew the first rule of gun safety is never point a gun at someone you don't intend on shooting. . . . . In addition, if BALDWIN had not pointed the gun at HUTCHINS and SOUZA, the tragedy would not have occurred."

Some additional interesting information. (1) The shooting occurred during a rehearsal when Baldwin was not even supposed to be handling a real gun -- it was not needed for rehearsal. (2) His later statement that the gun had just "gone off" was easily debunked, and didn't make him any friends with the prosecutors and law enforcement. (3) Baldwin really needed to follow his (real) lawyers' advice and shut up -- there are all kinds of post-shooting public statement being used against him. Foolish.

So has a jury agreed that his being "distracted" during training constitutes criminal negligence and therefore convicted him of manslaughter? Oh, wait...

It has escaped you as well as the majority of posters on this thread that a judge has yet to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for a trial. Most of you have yet to grasp the distinction between allegations and a conviction.

No, everyone is aware that charges were only filed yesterday (1/31/23), and that whatever judge was assigned the case has not seen any kind of motion to dismiss yet.

Anyone reading this thread is also well aware of your new and childish strawman/red herring/squirrel strategy regarding your previous emphatic and unequivocal statements that "Baldwin will not be charged with anything" and "Watch how Baldwin will not be charged with an offence." Moving those goalposts like you are trying to do is an enormous task when you set them in reinforced concrete the way you did.

Wait to see what he says when Baldwin is found guilty. He will have a completely take on it and still calim that he is correct and everyine else including the jury is incorrect.

Difference between "allegations" and being formally charged.

Charges are only an allegation until proven.

In announcing her intent to charge Baldwin, Carmack-Altwies said it was his responsibility to personally ensure the gun was safe to handle and would not fire.

But legal experts questioned whether that standard applies because an on-set weapons expert told Baldwin the gun was safe and contained only "dummy" rounds that would not fire.

Criminal liability is a "stretch," unless prosecutors "can show it was absolutely reckless in terms of the level of safety on set," said defense lawyer and former New Mexico U.S. attorney John Anderson, who is not involved in the case.

"Here it sounds like they had multiple safety checks built in," Anderson said.

In announcing her intent to charge Baldwin, Carmack-Altwies said it was his responsibility to personally ensure the gun was safe to handle and would not fire.

But legal experts questioned whether that standard applies because an on-set weapons expert told Baldwin the gun was safe and contained only "dummy" rounds that would not fire.

They said that criminal charges are rare even in accidental shooting deaths that take place in non-professional settings without safety protocols.

'UPHILL BATTLE'

Experts interviewed by Reuters could not cite another instance in which criminal charges stemmed from an accidental shooting death on a film set.

My arguments were chiefly against the chorus here who claimed he would be found guilty of murder. He hasn't been charged with murder. There are legal experts in the US who are even surprised that he has been charged with involuntary homicide - as I am - which, as I said previously, requires showing criminal negligence. The prosecutors have yet to convince a judge there is enough evidence to go to trial. Were it to go to trial legal experts say there is still the uphill task of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But it appears to you that simply proffering charges is sufficient. Fortunately, the criminal process requires that charges be proven and there is still a thing called the presumption of innocence.

When Baldwin is found guilty? It doesn't surprise me that a moron has arrived at a determination of guilt before there is even a trial.