[unlearner]

“I am no fan of Alec Baldwin, but the man did NOT commit a crime. He had no criminal intent.”

Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent.

If you or I did the same thing, we would do time in prison.

This is a grave miscarriage of justice. Baldwin will be back yapping his trap against conservatives and gun owners immediately. Sooner or later his pride will do him in.

[Renfrew]

It’s not if gun safety wasn’t his job.

Consider this example:
* You buy a bottle of aspirin from CVS
* You give one to a friend
* It turns out CVS had sold you cyanide!
* Your friend dies

CVS has 100% of the legal responsibility in this case.

[Navy Patriot]

Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent.

Additionally and Importantly, Baldwin is the Producer of the film and as such bears the responsibility for the actions of all the personnel on the set.

Baldwin specifically ordered the violation of mandatory safety procedures on the set and fired those persons who refused to follow his orders, including ordering personnel to disregard the Armorer's instructions.

Baldwin is fully responsible for the shooting and death on the set.

[bort]

Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent
—————————————————————-
Incorrect. There is no such thing as an unintentional crime. Every crime requires a mens rea, which is Latin for “guilty mind.” While an intent to kill is not required for manslaughter, the intent to commit the underlying crime, such as assault, is required. The prosecutor would have to prove that Baldwin intended to commit an assault, and that assault resulted in an unintentional killing. A second way to prove involuntary manslaughter is for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant acted with criminal negligence, which is substantially different than negligence. Criminal negligence requires a showing that Baldwin intentionally acted with reckless disregard for human life. That did not happen in this case.

[bort]

“I am no fan of Alec Baldwin, but the man did NOT commit a crime. He had no criminal intent.”

Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent.
_____________________________________________________
When you say involuntary manslaughter “does not require intent,” you are only partially correct. Involuntary manslaughter does not require a “specific intent” to kill. However, ALL jailable criminal offenses require that the defendant act with “criminal” or “general criminal” intent. In Baldwin’s case, he did not act with general criminal intent because: 1) he did not consciously disregard a known risk; and 2) he did not intentionally engage in significantly reckless conduct knowing full well the risks associated with his conduct.

Baldwin acted under the belief that the gun HAD BEEN CHECKED AND CLEARED for use as a prop. He didn’t know the gun had bullets in it, and he relied on a professional armorer whose job was to prevent such an accident from happening.

[Seaplaner]

Sooner or later his pride will do him in.

Perhaps.

I do wonder if Mister Baldwin might get a visit from Mister Conscience at some point, however.

Unlikely, one suspects.