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

Noyankee wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have argued that previously and I referred to the comments of a former judge and legal experts who say it is going to be uphill for the prosecution to make Baldwin criminally culpable.

You keep missing the point that the processes of a movie set, whereby an actor is given a firearm as a stage prop, are not directly analogous to the handling of a fire-arm in other settings. We have seen that the armorer and the director have both been found guilty for failing to observe the necessary duty of care that resulted in the camera woman's death. It was their job to ensure the gun wasn't loaded with real ammunition - which they failed to do - and the director assured the set, including Baldwin, that the firearm was harmless. Their failure was therefore determined to be the cause of death. If they had done their job the camera-woman wouldn't have died. If it is determined that Baldwin simply acted on their assurances, as he was entitled to do, then he is not culpable - unless his own actions are deemed to have been grossly negligent - "without due caution and circumspection", in other words. That will have to be proven.

This particular actor also had plenty of time behind a closed door to slip a bullet into the chamber so that his first pull of the trigger blew away an innocent girl, no?

Noyankee wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have argued that previously and I referred to the comments of a former judge and legal experts who say it is going to be uphill for the prosecution to make Baldwin criminally culpable.

You keep missing the point that the processes of a movie set, whereby an actor is given a firearm as a stage prop, are not directly analogous to the handling of a fire-arm in other settings. We have seen that the armorer and the director have both been found guilty for failing to observe the necessary duty of care that resulted in the camera woman's death. It was their job to ensure the gun wasn't loaded with real ammunition - which they failed to do - and the director assured the set, including Baldwin, that the firearm was harmless. Their failure was therefore determined to be the cause of death. If they had done their job the camera-woman wouldn't have died. If it is determined that Baldwin simply acted on their assurances, as he was entitled to do, then he is not culpable - unless his own actions are deemed to have been grossly negligent - "without due caution and circumspection", in other words. That will have to be proven.

This particular actor also had plenty of time behind a closed door to slip a bullet into the chamber so that his first pull of the trigger blew away an innocent girl, no?

We Should Try To Be Accurate wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You keep missing the point that the processes of a movie set, whereby an actor is given a firearm

And YOU keep missing the point that Baldwin wasn't only an actor, he was also a producer, so he has twice the exposure to liability.

A court could find Baldwin the actor not liable, but Baldwin the producer liable, for being in charge of a set where dangerous things were happening. (Or vice versa.)

An actor can blame the higher ups for the gun having a real bullet. And a higher up (like a producer) can blame the low level employees and actors for a gun having a real bullet. But in this film, Baldwin was on both ends. It's very difficult for him to say he is totally blameless from a legal perspective.

There is no way that Baldwin gets off completely scot free. If he is smart, Baldwin will cut a deal, and plead guilty to something that doesn't involve jail time.

Armstronglivs wrote:

SpeedConcept wrote:

The law is most certainly not on Baldwin’s side. The “system” on set does not supersede state and local laws. There is no statute in New Mexico law that says Actors are absolved of handling guns without due care or circumspection.

Here’s New Mexico case law dealing with Involuntary Manslaughter with a Firearm :

State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). It’s a 70 year old case but it is still perfectly valid law unless superseded by another case or legislation, which it hasn’t been.

The relevant part for the Baldwin Case:

“It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted”

Link:lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-...

You have argued that previously and I referred to the comments of a former judge and legal experts who say it is going to be uphill for the prosecution to make Baldwin criminally culpable.

You keep missing the point that the processes of a movie set, whereby an actor is given a firearm as a stage prop, are not directly analogous to the handling of a fire-arm in other settings. We have seen that the armorer and the director have both been found guilty for failing to observe the necessary duty of care that resulted in the camera woman's death. It was their job to ensure the gun wasn't loaded with real ammunition - which they failed to do - and the director assured the set, including Baldwin, that the firearm was harmless. Their failure was therefore determined to be the cause of death. If they had done their job the camera-woman wouldn't have died. If it is determined that Baldwin simply acted on their assurances, as he was entitled to do, then he is not culpable - unless his own actions are deemed to have been grossly negligent - "without due caution and circumspection", in other words. That will have to be proven.

SpeedConcept wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have argued that previously and I referred to the comments of a former judge and legal experts who say it is going to be uphill for the prosecution to make Baldwin criminally culpable.

You keep missing the point that the processes of a movie set, whereby an actor is given a firearm as a stage prop, are not directly analogous to the handling of a fire-arm in other settings. We have seen that the armorer and the director have both been found guilty for failing to observe the necessary duty of care that resulted in the camera woman's death. It was their job to ensure the gun wasn't loaded with real ammunition - which they failed to do - and the director assured the set, including Baldwin, that the firearm was harmless. Their failure was therefore determined to be the cause of death. If they had done their job the camera-woman wouldn't have died. If it is determined that Baldwin simply acted on their assurances, as he was entitled to do, then he is not culpable - unless his own actions are deemed to have been grossly negligent - "without due caution and circumspection", in other words. That will have to be proven.

Sorry, there is no law on the books anywhere that exempts movie sets or anyone on a set for handling firearms without due care and circumspection. Just stop.

Here’s why Baldwin’s actions were grossly negligent:

-SAG safety guidelines state that an actor is ultimately responsible for their safety as well as others on set. (It means that they are entitled to bring up safety issues that pertain to them and that their ACTIONS should not be unsafe and not put anyone in danger)

SAG Gun Safety guidelines say 1. Always assume a gun is loaded and dangerous 2. Never point it at anyone 3. Never pull the trigger

- Baldwin was shown during trial in numerous out takes using the gun in his hand as a pointing stick. Grossly Negligent behavior when handling any type of firearm. Shows Baldwin is cavalier about gun safety

-Movie shots involving guns and blanks are carefully choreographed and timed with cast and crew because even blanks can kill! Baldwin was shown during the trial shooting a blank in the air AFTER the Director yelled CUT. Grossly negligent behavior that further shows his cavalier attitude

Here’s why Baldwin was charged

- Guns are inherently dangerous objects that everyone knows require extra care when handling

- Baldwin is a member of SAG and has thus been trained in their safety guidelines

- Baldwin assumed the gun was safe WITHOUT asking the AD to show him it was loaded correctly. One of prosecutor’s experts pointed this out. This expert specifically said with that type of gun, he takes the fake bullets out, shakes them so the actor can hear the rattle, then hands the actor the gun. Also, Baldwin’s co Star told police that he safely fires a revolver with fake rounds to make sure all rounds are fake. Baldwin just ASSUMES.

- Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that required him to point a gun at someone, with the hammer pulled back, and had his finger on the trigger (FBI testified there is no way the gun could fire without the trigger being pulled ). Baldwin’s statements other wise will be viewed as extremely self serving at trial absent any other evidence to the contrary. Baldwin should have ensured no one was in the line of fire.