Alex Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter
- Thread starter thekinggovernor
- Start date
Kozzy McKoz
To fuck around is human, to find out is divine
This is the most smooth brain mental midget take to come out of this situation
Guntards are apparently unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality
aloe
OT Supporter
here drive this car i am giving you the keys to
the tires are bald and under inflated. tire blows out and you crash into someone and kill them
you are still the driver on the car and responsible for operating it safely.
skeletor25rs
It feels like real butter
He’ll get off on the technicality that his name was misspelled.Why has the thread title not been updated yet?
If I'm an actor who's supposed to drive a car 50' down a closed road as part of a film shot, and the car is already in position, with the extras, fellow actors, etc all standing there waiting for the scene to start, no. I'm not checking the tires and brakes. I'm assuming that whoever provided and set up the car already did that. That's not my job. My job is just to act.
MiseryIndex
open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
i'm completely in agreement with this.
how do trained police have qualified immunity to not get charged personally when they shoot someone with an actual gun but an actor does when the person responsible for it fucks up?
that being said, if alec and the production company get sued for hiring the person who fucked up, that makes sense. but i'm arguing him as an actor.
He was handed a gun, it's on him to verify that it's safe to use. Period.
MiseryIndex
open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
what are the odds this is actually done in action movies? by the actor i mean. arnold & mel gibson taking out every bullet from the dozens of guns they use per movie to make sure its not real?
Stylerod
150mph in a swimsuit :eek3:
Have they figured out who the fucking moron was that brought live ammo to a movie shoot? Someone has to know.
Go back to the beginning this whole thing was a shit show. Baldwin no doubt played his part but that fucktard armorer had no business handling firearms. She might have known how to use them but by the stories she was incredibly cavalier about safety. Live ammo on set THAT EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT is a huge issue to start. Then the night before the shooting they had apparently been out plinking with the same "prop" gun involved in the shooting somewhere nearby. I can't even get past this part. WHY THE FUCK DID ANYONE THINK THIS WAS REMOTELY OK?????
These are all arrogant morons and they should all be charged.
Qualified immunity only affects civil suits.i'm completely in agreement with this.
how do trained police have qualified immunity to not get charged personally when they shoot someone with an actual gun but an actor does when the person responsible for it fucks up?
that being said, if alec and the production company get sued for hiring the person who fucked up, that makes sense. but i'm arguing him as an actor.
Highlander_77
Madre de Dios! Es el Pollo Diablo!!!
I understand that, but it was a real gun. I don't understand why they're using anything on a movie set where any sort of projectile could end up being fired out of the barrel at this point.
MiseryIndex
open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
understood. but how often does a DA go after an officer criminally?
anyway, i'm sure you understand my point.
Apparently this needs to be said again...
If George Clooney can do it, why can't Alec Baldwin. Even if the actor doesn't know about guns and doesn't want to personally verify it, they can be shown by the armorer it's "safe" before taking possession.
Haven’t kept up with all the facts in the case, but let’s be sure we’re discussing the appropriate standard here:
“In New Mexico, "the State must show at least criminal negligence to convict a criminal defendant of involuntary manslaughter." Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131. Because involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing, we only attach felony liability where the actor has behaved with the requisite mens rea. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. This Court has made clear that the criminal negligence standard applies to all three categories of involuntary manslaughter. State v. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 54, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996 ("nvoluntary manslaughter, whether premised upon a lawful or unlawful act, requires a showing of criminal negligence."). Criminal negligence exists where the defendant "act with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger any person or property." Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, ¶ 16, 148 *1014 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); UJI 14-133 NMRA. We also require that the defendant must possess subjective knowledge "of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions." Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103.
(…)
The showing of criminal negligence required for an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction includes the concept of recklessness, in which a defendant "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that harm will result from his conduct. Model Penal Code § 2.02(c) (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1962). The uniform jury instruction on criminal negligence incorporates this definition, defining criminal negligence as existing when a person "act with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger any person or property." UJI 14-133 NMRA. Likewise, the instruction on involuntary manslaughter states that the defendant "should have known of the danger involved by [his or her] actions." UJI 14-231 NMRA. To be convicted of involuntary *108 manslaughter, a defendant must have been aware of the risk caused by his or her conduct and continued to act.
(…)
Our case law has long integrated the requirement of subjective knowledge into the showing of criminal negligence required by our involuntary manslaughter statute. See State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 428, 70 P.2d 757, 758 (1937) (defining criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter as "so reckless, wanton, and willful as to show an utter disregard for the safety of [others]"); see also Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131 (noting, in a vehicular homicide case, that to find criminal negligence, "[the jury] must find that [the defendant] drove with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endangered any person or property" (quoting NMRA 14-241 (1996))); Romero,2005-NMCA-060, ¶ 17, 137 N.M. 456, 112 P.3d 1113 (finding that an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction should have been given where the defendant presented evidence that he was acting lawfully in self-defense but "without due caution or circumspection due to" the victim's medical condition, of which the defendant was aware); cf. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 14, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 (stating that a jury instructed on involuntary manslaughter is not also instructed on accident, as accident requires proof of "usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent," in contrast to the required showing of criminal negligence for an involuntary manslaughter instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis omitted)). Criminal negligence in the context of involuntary manslaughter requires subjective knowledge by the defendant of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions. “
Federal courts have interpreted the term “without due cause and circumspection” to be the equivalent of “criminal negligence” where the negligence is “the conduct of the accused [was] such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful man under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life”
Was Baldwin aware (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the gun could be loaded but willfully disregarded that risk and decided to fire it anyway? This is a tough standard to prove, and absent evidence of Baldwin saying something like “I wonder if this is loaded/I hope it’s not loaded” I don’t see a jury convicting .
Would a reasonable actor with the knowledge and expertise of Baldwin have checked to see if the gun contained live ammunition or would they would simply take the props master’s word for it? I’m betting the overwhelming prevailing practice in the industry is the latter.
“In New Mexico, "the State must show at least criminal negligence to convict a criminal defendant of involuntary manslaughter." Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131. Because involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing, we only attach felony liability where the actor has behaved with the requisite mens rea. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. This Court has made clear that the criminal negligence standard applies to all three categories of involuntary manslaughter. State v. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 54, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996 ("nvoluntary manslaughter, whether premised upon a lawful or unlawful act, requires a showing of criminal negligence."). Criminal negligence exists where the defendant "act with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger any person or property." Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, ¶ 16, 148 *1014 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); UJI 14-133 NMRA. We also require that the defendant must possess subjective knowledge "of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions." Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103.
(…)
The showing of criminal negligence required for an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction includes the concept of recklessness, in which a defendant "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that harm will result from his conduct. Model Penal Code § 2.02(c) (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1962). The uniform jury instruction on criminal negligence incorporates this definition, defining criminal negligence as existing when a person "act with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger any person or property." UJI 14-133 NMRA. Likewise, the instruction on involuntary manslaughter states that the defendant "should have known of the danger involved by [his or her] actions." UJI 14-231 NMRA. To be convicted of involuntary *108 manslaughter, a defendant must have been aware of the risk caused by his or her conduct and continued to act.
(…)
Our case law has long integrated the requirement of subjective knowledge into the showing of criminal negligence required by our involuntary manslaughter statute. See State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 428, 70 P.2d 757, 758 (1937) (defining criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter as "so reckless, wanton, and willful as to show an utter disregard for the safety of [others]"); see also Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131 (noting, in a vehicular homicide case, that to find criminal negligence, "[the jury] must find that [the defendant] drove with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endangered any person or property" (quoting NMRA 14-241 (1996))); Romero,2005-NMCA-060, ¶ 17, 137 N.M. 456, 112 P.3d 1113 (finding that an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction should have been given where the defendant presented evidence that he was acting lawfully in self-defense but "without due caution or circumspection due to" the victim's medical condition, of which the defendant was aware); cf. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 14, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 (stating that a jury instructed on involuntary manslaughter is not also instructed on accident, as accident requires proof of "usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent," in contrast to the required showing of criminal negligence for an involuntary manslaughter instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis omitted)). Criminal negligence in the context of involuntary manslaughter requires subjective knowledge by the defendant of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions. “
Federal courts have interpreted the term “without due cause and circumspection” to be the equivalent of “criminal negligence” where the negligence is “the conduct of the accused [was] such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful man under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life”
Was Baldwin aware (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the gun could be loaded but willfully disregarded that risk and decided to fire it anyway? This is a tough standard to prove, and absent evidence of Baldwin saying something like “I wonder if this is loaded/I hope it’s not loaded” I don’t see a jury convicting .
Would a reasonable actor with the knowledge and expertise of Baldwin have checked to see if the gun contained live ammunition or would they would simply take the props master’s word for it? I’m betting the overwhelming prevailing practice in the industry is the latter.
Last edited:
Try again. He's responsible as the person who pulled the trigger and the overall situation at the producer
gimpshiznit
Totally not Larry
TheBoyWonder
OT Supporter
MiseryIndex
open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
ah yes, famous action movie star george clooney. i legit can't think of a single movie he held a gun in aside from from dusk till dawn. but i'm sure there's some. in any case, i'm not really talking about alec specifically, just responding to your proclamation that its a law somewhere that the actor must do this. and i'm asking if you think they do. you think before every shot in john wick keanu took the bullets out to check? or the 90s action movies where arnold held like a dozen guns within a half hour? i'm not saying it shouldn't be a law, or rule, or whatever. just that it almost *can't* be the actors job in most cases. it has to be done ahead of time. and by someone else who is trained to tell the difference.
Being an actor is not an excuse for negligence.Haven’t kept up with all the facts in the case, but let’s be sure we’re discussing the appropriate standard here:
“In New Mexico, "the State must show at least criminal negligence to convict a criminal defendant of involuntary manslaughter." Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131. Because involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing, we only attach felony liability where the actor has behaved with the requisite mens rea. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. This Court has made clear that the criminal negligence standard applies to all three categories of involuntary manslaughter. State v. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 54, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996 ("nvoluntary manslaughter, whether premised upon a lawful or unlawful act, requires a showing of criminal negligence."). Criminal negligence exists where the defendant "act with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger any person or property." Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, ¶ 16, 148 *1014 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); UJI 14-133 NMRA. We also require that the defendant must possess subjective knowledge "of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions." Henley, 2010-NMSC-039, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 359, 237 P.3d 103.
(…)
The showing of criminal negligence required for an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction includes the concept of recklessness, in which a defendant "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that harm will result from his conduct. Model Penal Code § 2.02(c) (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1962). The uniform jury instruction on criminal negligence incorporates this definition, defining criminal negligence as existing when a person "act with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger any person or property." UJI 14-133 NMRA. Likewise, the instruction on involuntary manslaughter states that the defendant "should have known of the danger involved by [his or her] actions." UJI 14-231 NMRA. To be convicted of involuntary *108 manslaughter, a defendant must have been aware of the risk caused by his or her conduct and continued to act.
(…)
Our case law has long integrated the requirement of subjective knowledge into the showing of criminal negligence required by our involuntary manslaughter statute. See State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 428, 70 P.2d 757, 758 (1937) (defining criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter as "so reckless, wanton, and willful as to show an utter disregard for the safety of [others]"); see also Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131 (noting, in a vehicular homicide case, that to find criminal negligence, "[the jury] must find that [the defendant] drove with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endangered any person or property" (quoting NMRA 14-241 (1996))); Romero,2005-NMCA-060, ¶ 17, 137 N.M. 456, 112 P.3d 1113 (finding that an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction should have been given where the defendant presented evidence that he was acting lawfully in self-defense but "without due caution or circumspection due to" the victim's medical condition, of which the defendant was aware); cf. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 14, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 (stating that a jury instructed on involuntary manslaughter is not also instructed on accident, as accident requires proof of "usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent," in contrast to the required showing of criminal negligence for an involuntary manslaughter instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis omitted)). Criminal negligence in the context of involuntary manslaughter requires subjective knowledge by the defendant of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions. “
Federal courts have interpreted the term “without due cause and circumspection” to be the equivalent of “criminal negligence” where the negligence is “the conduct of the accused [was] such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful man under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life”
Was Baldwin aware (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the gun could be loaded but willfully disregarded that risk and decided to fire it anyway? This is a tough standard to prove, and absent evidence of Baldwin saying something like “I wonder if this is loaded/I hope it’s not loaded” I don’t see a jury convicting .
Would a reasonable actor with the knowledge and expertise of Baldwin have checked to see if the gun contained live ammunition or would they would simply take the props master’s word for it? I’m betting the overwhelming prevailing practice in the industry is the latter.