Alex Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter

Joe_Cool

Judge Judy and Executioner
OT Supporter
Jun 30, 2003
330,640
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:
The armorer wasn't on set, and so nobody should have been fucking around with any guns whatsoever. Wouldn't that qualify as "without due cause and introspection?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck Finley

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
No, you're conflating two things.
Try again. He's responsible as the person who pulled the trigger and the overall situation at the producer

the film has 8 producers and 4 different production companies. but sure, i've said several times i think he is more liable as a producer (even if its in name only) than he is the shooter. if he was handed the gun and supposed to fire it in the course of his role in the scene, idk how he personally as an actor can be liable. and if he did something in error, or reckless, he should be civilly charged too. but i don't know or think thats the case.
 
  • Clown
Reactions: Chuck Finley

///TRASH

🤙 Chill Vibes Only 🤙
OT Supporter
Jan 20, 2001
51,840
San Diego, California
Law professor at Washington university says:


“To convict Baldwin of manslaughter – assuming the case goes to trial – the prosecutor will have to convince a jury of two things. First, that Baldwin could not reasonably rely on Gutierrez-Reed to do her job and ensure that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it. And second, that Baldwin acted recklessly, or at least with criminal negligence, by not checking the gun and the ammunition himself before pointing the gun at the person he killed.”
 

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
Being an actor is not an excuse for negligence.
i guess that just depends what the expectation is. what the burden put on the actor is in this.

if you rent a car and as you drive away the brakes fail and you kill someone. yeah you may be sued, but ultimately its the responsibility of the person/company renting the car, and they'll take the biggest hit. is it the drivers job to inspect the car themselves? would they even know how?

the armorer already sued the company who supplied the bullets. and they should still be charged themselves anyway, which i'm sure they were. and sure, charge the producers who hired that negligent person. but if this was a no name actor i bet they never get charged personally.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Chuck Finley

///TRASH

🤙 Chill Vibes Only 🤙
OT Supporter
Jan 20, 2001
51,840
San Diego, California
The armorer wasn't on set, and so nobody should have been fucking around with any guns whatsoever. Wouldn't that qualify as "without due cause and introspection?"
Maybe. But the cases I’ve found with convictions have facts that more strongly support a conviction imo. E.g. drunk driving and killing a family while speeding, or firing through a door after a victim knocks, or a landlord failing to install smoke detectors in his/her units.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Cool

Joe_Cool

Judge Judy and Executioner
OT Supporter
Jun 30, 2003
330,640
Was there anything about that gun that would cause Baldwin to think, this could be loaded? Can the state prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?

No way
It's a real gun. Real ammo was present on set. According to unsubstantiated rumor, the crew had been out in the hills using that very same gun for target shooting with real ammo.

:dunno:
 

///TRASH

🤙 Chill Vibes Only 🤙
OT Supporter
Jan 20, 2001
51,840
San Diego, California
It's a real gun. Real ammo was present on set. According to unsubstantiated rumor, the crew had been out in the hills using that very same gun for target shooting with real ammo.

:dunno:
Interesting. I think that obviously supports ordinary civil negligence, but not so sure about criminal negligence. For example, a clearer case would be putting a round in a revolver, spinning the wheel thing, pointing it at someone, and squeezing the trigger .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Cool

///TRASH

🤙 Chill Vibes Only 🤙
OT Supporter
Jan 20, 2001
51,840
San Diego, California
after a 2014 train crash in Georgia killed assistant camera operator Sarah Jones during filming of “Midnight Rider,” director Randall Miller pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served just over a year in prison.

Executive producer Jay Sedrish and assistant director Hillary Schwartz also pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter; they were sentenced to probation.

The filmmakers had decided to shoot a scene on a trestle that spans a river even after railroad track owner CSX denied them permission. A train zoomed into the set at 55 mph.
 

Bill The Butcher

OT Supporter
Nov 28, 2004
65,170
Chicago(land)
after a 2014 train crash in Georgia killed assistant camera operator Sarah Jones during filming of “Midnight Rider,” director Randall Miller pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served just over a year in prison.

Executive producer Jay Sedrish and assistant director Hillary Schwartz also pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter; they were sentenced to probation.

The filmmakers had decided to shoot a scene on a trestle that spans a river even after railroad track owner CSX denied them permission. A train zoomed into the set at 55 mph.

what a way to go

 

Chuck Finley

Florida Man | Infamous ROFL Spammer
Super Moderator
May 1, 2002
96,239
St Pete, FL
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.
Yes, Keanu is definitely doing this. He shoots regularly.

I love how you're bending over backwards to justify unsafe gun-handling practices where the actual person holding the gun shouldn't be verifying it's safe to use.
 

Chuck Finley

Florida Man | Infamous ROFL Spammer
Super Moderator
May 1, 2002
96,239
St Pete, FL
if he was handed the gun and supposed to fire it in the course of his role in the scene
If he is handed a gun he should be part of the process of verifying the gun is "safe" for use on set or personally verifying after it's handed to him.

You guys will bend over backwards to justify the dumbest gun control but we're arguing for the most basic level of gun safety, where you check any gun that's handed to you, and you're doing these insane mental gymnastics to argue against it. :rofl:
 

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
If he is handed a gun he should be part of the process of verifying the gun is "safe" for use on set or personally verifying after it's handed to him.

You guys will bend over backwards to justify the dumbest gun control but we're arguing for the most basic level of gun safety, where you check any gun that's handed to you, and you're doing these insane mental gymnastics to argue against it. :rofl:

you still aren't answering what i'm asking. in this case, it seems simple enough. but how do you think that works in practice generally speaking? if you were to make that a rule or law, & the responsibility of the actor. they should be trained and know how, no doubt. but again..it's someones actual job, not theirs.

but ok..




all 25 of you. take every bullet out of each gun you are about to handle and inspect it before we start the shot. every single take? maybe in this case arnie is the only one actually shooting. hell, maybe its even done in post. but you get my point. any action movie with lots of big shootout scenes. these aren't revolvers either.
 

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
You guys will bend over backwards to justify the dumbest gun control but we're arguing for the most basic level of gun safety

sidenote. i know you're reasonable, but you realize there's people who believe gun safety and training classes infringe in your 2fa rights. yet what you're arguing is that fucking actors who are supposed to be using prop guns without actual bullets should be trained on ballistics to tell the difference in bullets :dunno:

i think we can all compromise here and say there SHOULD be a certification process to be a set armorer. and whoever decided to film without them present should be held responsible here. i'm just not sure i agree its the actor (in their capacity as an actor).
 

Chuck Finley

Florida Man | Infamous ROFL Spammer
Super Moderator
May 1, 2002
96,239
St Pete, FL
sidenote. i know you're reasonable, but you realize there's people who believe gun safety and training classes infringe in your 2fa rights. yet what you're arguing is that fucking actors who are supposed to be using prop guns without actual bullets should be trained on ballistics to tell the difference in bullets :dunno:

i think we can all compromise here and say there SHOULD be a certification process to be a set armorer. and whoever decided to film without them present should be held responsible here. i'm just not sure i agree its the actor (in their capacity as an actor).
They don’t need to be trained in ballistics. They can have the armorer simply show it to them before they begin a scene. You’re bending over backwards to justify violating the most basic rule of gun safety.
 

Chuck Finley

Florida Man | Infamous ROFL Spammer
Super Moderator
May 1, 2002
96,239
St Pete, FL
you still aren't answering what i'm asking. in this case, it seems simple enough. but how do you think that works in practice generally speaking? if you were to make that a rule or law, & the responsibility of the actor. they should be trained and know how, no doubt. but again..it's someones actual job, not theirs.

but ok..




all 25 of you. take every bullet out of each gun you are about to handle and inspect it before we start the shot. every single take? maybe in this case arnie is the only one actually shooting. hell, maybe its even done in post. but you get my point. any action movie with lots of big shootout scenes. these aren't revolvers either.

yes, implement controls where the ammo is checked and the guns are checked before takes and secure them. This isn’t as hard as you’re pretending it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyP

Russel's Teapot

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2012
3,121
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.

Clooney killed Brad Pitt!

And the guns in John Wick were fake. The muzzle flashes, etc were CGi.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Chuck Finley

Russel's Teapot

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2012
3,121
Law professor at Washington university says:


“To convict Baldwin of manslaughter – assuming the case goes to trial – the prosecutor will have to convince a jury of two things. First, that Baldwin could not reasonably rely on Gutierrez-Reed to do her job and ensure that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it. And second, that Baldwin acted recklessly, or at least with criminal negligence, by not checking the gun and the ammunition himself before pointing the gun at the person he killed.”

He's still going to get fucked eventualty by being in charge of the set and owning the company making the movie.
 

Dolan

Low self of steam.
OT Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
3,642
United States
How the fuck are set guns chambered in a caliber that even exists in live ammo form?

Before all of this, I would have just assumed that with the budget Hollywood has, what looks like a Glock 9mm is really a 10.5mm variant or some shit where they only make blanks in that caliber.

Sets use fake paper bags that are silent and fake billiard balls that don't clink and fake ice that doesn't melt but just regular ass guns from Redneck Jim's Pew-Pew-Rama? Someone should probably fix that shit.
 

Diesel66

OT Supporter
Feb 20, 2005
126,984
Kc
How the fuck are set guns chambered in a caliber that even exists in live ammo form?

Before all of this, I would have just assumed that with the budget Hollywood has, what looks like a Glock 9mm is really a 10.5mm variant or some shit where they only make blanks in that caliber.

Sets use fake paper bags that are silent and fake billiard balls that don't clink and fake ice that doesn't melt but just regular ass guns from Redneck Jim's Pew-Pew-Rama? Someone should probably fix that shit.
That would be very expensive. Blanks and training ammo are just made in regular calibers
 

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
459
Guests online
105
Total visitors
564

Forum statistics

Threads
79,410
Messages
7,731,128
Members
87,089
Latest member
olegarchy