Alex Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter

Jacko

Kiss me bb
OT Supporter
Oct 17, 2006
23,125
NYC
I don't see how this sticks. An actor is handed a gun, with a round already in the chamber, and is told, either in that moment, or it is implied by the general procedure of shooting films with firearms, that the round is a blank, and that he is to pull the trigger at x time. He has no reasonable opportunity to verify that the round is a blank. Ejecting the round either totally fucks up the shot, or introduces a new, equally unknown round into the chamber. The only way this sticks is if Baldwin actually circumvented procedure and picked up a gun or magazine that he wasn't supposed to.

What I don't understand is how the armorer could let this happen. There is exactly ZERO reason for any live ammunition to be on-set at all. It doesn't belong there, period.

The only scenario I can imagine where this happens without either intent or VERY gross negligence, is if someone (Baldwin or the armorer) is a daily-carry person, and decides to use their personal weapon in the shot instead of one from whatever collection they're supposed to draw from, and swaps to a magazine of blanks, but forgets to eject the live round in the chamber. Perhaps this is what happened. Baldwin does sort of strike me as the kind of guy who might carry. And if he made a decision to use his personal weapon, I can see why they would charge him. But then to also charge the armorer? I guess if they allowed it then they bear some responsibility.
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.
 
  • Clown
Reactions: KingOfBabTouma

Mariner

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2000
46,825
PNW
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingOfBabTouma

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
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.

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? :rofl:

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.
 
  • Clown
Reactions: Chuck Finley

Chuck Finley

Florida Man | Infamous ROFL Spammer
Super Moderator
May 1, 2002
96,239
St Pete, FL
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.
He was handed a gun, it's on him to verify that it's safe to use. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacko and aloe

FritoBandito

Gol Meember
OT Supporter
Dec 1, 2003
23,515
Kalifornia
why was there live rounds on set is what i dont understand
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacko

Diesel66

OT Supporter
Feb 20, 2005
126,984
Kc
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? :rofl:

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.
Qualified immunity only affects civil suits.
 

Chuck Finley

Florida Man | Infamous ROFL Spammer
Super Moderator
May 1, 2002
96,239
St Pete, FL
Apparently this needs to be said again...

PCv15pI.png

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?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Cool and Jacko

///TRASH

🤙 Chill Vibes Only 🤙
OT Supporter
Jan 20, 2001
51,847
San Diego, California
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. :dunno:
 
Last edited:

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
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.

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.
 

Swiftie

not a troll account
Jun 4, 2004
49,815
OKC
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. :dunno:
Being an actor is not an excuse for negligence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.13.2 Copyright © 2000-2023 Offtopic.com
Served by fx.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
452
Guests online
111
Total visitors
563

Forum statistics

Threads
79,411
Messages
7,731,272
Members
87,089
Latest member
olegarchy