Alec Baldwin Will Be Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter in ‘Rust’ Killing

New York Times ^ | New York Times

[Lurch Addams]

The film’s armorer will face the same charge. A cinematographer was killed when a gun Baldwin was rehearsing with went off. There was not supposed to be live ammunition on the set.

[nathanbedford]

"True Conservatives" consistently lose because they pretend that if they follow "the rules", the Leftists will follow the same "rules". The Leftists never follow "the rules" if they are inconvenient. It is a mistake to give Leftists the benefit in your arguments the doubt and rationalize this as "due process".

I detect a bit of sleight-of-hand in your assertions. Observing the elements of the law is more than following "the rules" as opposed to yielding one's adversary "the benefit" of an argument. The elements needed to prove a crime are fundamental, hence, without adherence to them true conservatives will "consistently lose" regardless of whether they win a case or not.

For the idea of conservatism is to adhere to a rule of law rather than to submit to tyranny on the one hand or to run with the mob on the other. There is no refuge for us but the rule of law. Leftists are not encumbered with this burden, they simply want to win the argument or the case.

We alone can lose by winning the wrong way.

[Col Frank Slade]

Any word on when the DA will file charges ?

Must be soon if it’s already leaked..

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The cop was trying to arrest a driver who was resisting arrest. The arrestee had an outstanding warrant for failure to appear on charge of carrying an unlicensed firearm and a protection order out against him. She was under extreme duress. Baldwin was horsing around with a gun.

[Bob434]

Yep- i remember reading about that- and he also fired the safety crew- or they quit because they were disgusted with his lack of safety or something-

[Old Student]

“True conservatives will refrain from projecting Alec Baldwin guilty simply because we rightly find his politics repugnant.”

True gun nuts will find him guilty because he violated several of the most basic rules of gun safety.

First, he did not check to ensure that it was not loaded himself. That is rule #1. A gun is always loaded until and unless you have checked it yourself. Second, he pointed it at a person.

Rule #2 is that you do not point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy. He pointed it at a person!!!

Rule #3 is to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. His claiming the gun “just went off” is BS. He had his finger on the trigger or it would not have gone. It’s a single-action revolver. You have to cock the hammer before you can fire, and pull the trigger to fire it.

If he had dropped it and it fired, that would be possible. Even if it was not cocked. And I wouldn’t be blaming him for an accidental death. But he pointed it at a person, cocked the hammer back, and pulled the trigger. None of those things is an accident. AT BEST they are total negligence.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has their version of the four basic rules of firearms safety here: https://www.nssf.org/articles/4-primary-rules-of-firearm-safety/

They have the rules out of order from what I learned. You have to pick up the gun first. THAT is when you check it. While also following their rule #1, my rule #2, of keeping it pointed in a safe direction.

It’s probably not Murder in the 1st Degree, but it’s at least negligent homicide.

OS

[flamberge]

Question really is who put a real bullet in that gun?

Not really.

The Armorer or designated Weapons Handler should have personally checked the weapon immediately before it was handed to the Actor. That is the industry-standard practice.

And the Actor has the right (but no obligation) to check the weapon again. Standard practice in the film industry. Offends the purists who live by the "four rules". But actors are assumed to be trainable chimpanzees who cannot be trusted with firearms. The industry practices are made to deal with that problem. If they are followed and enforced, they do.

Of course, there should have never been live ammunition anywhere on that set, as the script did not require a live fire session. Nor should other cast members have been allowed to take any weapon after hours for recreational target practice.

Besides, it was a setup for a rehearsal. They should not have had any firearms issued to the Actor at that time.

The mistakes and negligence keep accumulating. At some point, luck always runs out.

Was the intention to kill her or to frame him?

This is way too clever a plot, suitable for movies or novels only. In real life, arrogant people commonly do stupid, negligent things and sometimes it catches up with them.

[AnAmericanMother]

Can't speak to New Mexico, but the Georgia statute has the exact same language - contrasting (felony) involuntary manslaughter with (misdemeanor) involuntary manslaughter.

A major case in Georgia from the Supreme Court went through in excruciating detail the meaning of the statute and the grades of homicide. Oddly enough, it involved another high profile shooting. Conviction reversed because the trial court failed to give the jury appropriate instructions, as well as some prejudicial hanky-panky by the DA.

McIver v. The State

[ProtectOurFreedom]

The gun “went off.” All by itself.

[telescope115]

I am assuming that the hammer being pulled back, that the force that it took to pull the trigger would’ve been much less. Perhaps, having his finger on the trigger, he jerked his finger involuntarily and fired the weapon.
I’m NOT excusing him! He is guilty of gross negligence at the very least.
I have never fired a single action revolver, but I do carry a double action only revolver, or a semiautomatic, whichever suits me.
There is no excuse for what he did. It was right that he was charged, and I can’t see any reason that he should get off.
He broke every gun-handling rule that I was ever taught.

[Organic Panic]

And sentence, if any, will be two weeks “community service” at the reelection campaign of some democrat politician. He is a liberal Trump hating celebrity democrat in good standing with the swamp. He will not see a single day inside a jail or prison.

[Rockingham]

I have not yet seen any comment on the prosecutor's curious approach of announcing intended charges but not actually filing charges. This may be a tactic to spur one or more plea bargains and better cooperation from potential defendants and witnesses. In addition, some forensic tests may still be outstanding. In high profile, politically sensitive cases, prosecutors like to have their evidence all lined up and plea bargains secured if possible before filing charges, which commits the prosecution to a full theory of the case and gives defendants discovery rights that could unravel or complicate an ill-prepared case.

[flamberge]

We alone can lose by winning the wrong way.

We are losing. There is no right way to lose.

Part of the problem is that "Rule of Law" has been replaced with "Pretense of Law". More commonly, this can be observed as "it's not a crime when a Democrat does it". Pick the name of any protected class you like as a substitute for "Democrat".

Another serious problem is seen with the observation that "The process is the punishment". Offend the authorities in many jurisdictions and you can be bankrupted by legal fees needed to defend yourself in court. This is particularly troublesome in "Self-defense" cases. Authorities really do not want ordinary citizens to resist criminal predators with any use of force, or indeed by any means at all.

State sanctions against individuals should be restrained by "Rule of Law" and its corollary of "Due Process". That is the entire meaning of "Presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Let's get real. Most accused persons are guilty as hell. But if the State cannot bother to prove that assertion beyond reasonable doubt, the accused person should go free. And that "proof" should follow certain rules-of-evidence that disallows certain actions of the State.

We don't want police to "round up the usual suspects", plant incriminating "evidence", or obtain "confessions" through torture. Those shortcuts do get convictions. They also get the wrong people, regardless of how you might define the "wrong people". Authorities tend to go after easy targets rather than actual criminals.

Rule of Law is about restraining the State, which otherwise will always tend to become abusive and oppressive.

The "sleight of hand" that you detect is that standards for the State must be different than the standards for an individual. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" does not apply to individuals making personal decisions about whether they will approach or avoid other people. The "Precautionary Principle" is appropriate.

A forum of opinion, likewise, has different standards than a courtroom. And it should. I have no power to throw Alec Baldwin into a dungeon, no matter what my opinion of the man. No apology is needed for intemperate opinion and no proof is required either. We are all posting here mostly for the satisfaction of our own egos and development of rhetorical skills.

Harsh, unsubstantiated opinions do have a risk of making a poster look stupid, especially if poorly written or unusually offensive. Nobody wants to look stupid, so there is some check on opinions. And there is incentive to sharpen one's critical thinking and writing skills too. Everybody makes mistakes (including me). It's all good.

It is different when I am sitting on a jury. I am keenly aware that there must be restraints on what the State can do and rules about how the State does it. I must be very cautious in judgements. I want the State to follow a Rule of Law.

Some of those rules need to be changed.

[newfreep]

My post was simply a copy/paste from the legal site I linked to.

If you have a problem with their definition, please contact them.

[MayflowerMadam]

What is worse? Involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide?

[RummyChick]

I have no opinion about the charges and what is suitable but he is, indeed, an awful person.

So I have no sympathy about how this has wrecked him.

Wonder if there will be a divorce to protect his assets and his kajillion number of kids.

[nathanbedford]

I quoted above the New Mexico statute on involuntary manslaughter which says in the relevant part: “the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

It seems that the statute provides ample scope for the prosecutor to obtain a conviction under the facts as we know them today. I note that the prosecutor need not even prove that the act committed “without due caution and circumspection” need not produce death but he must only prove that it “might” produce death.

In assessing whether there was a failure of due caution and circumspection it would seem that the well accepted rules for the handling of firearms, together with the specific rules and statutes regulating the use of firearms on movie sets would be entirely relevant for the jury to consider.

Baldwin has a tough case here so I expect him to try to lay the blame entirely on co-defendants.

[DiogenesLamp]

There was not supposed to be live ammunition on the set.

I used to keep up with this issue. Last thing I recall reading on the topic is that the supplier of the guns and supposedly dummy ammo is the one who mistakenly put live rounds in the order which was sent to the movie set.

Dummy bullets look exactly like real bullets. Why no charges against the supplier?

Maybe they know something I don't.

[DiogenesLamp]

True conservatives will refrain from projecting Alec Baldwin guilty simply because we rightly find his politics repugnant.

I do in fact think he is guilty because the evidence I have read supports that conclusion.

However, to address your point, a bon chat, bon rat.

[nagant]

Oddly enough, in spite of my admittedly biased opinion of Alec Baldwin, I do not believe the killing was premeditated or a murder.
~~~~

Yeah, it seems like a stupid move by a rank amateur. It seems like the novice armorer and the person responsible for hiring her were just as culpable ..... until you find out that Baldwin, the guy who pulled the trigger, IS thy guy who hired the novice armorer ....and assigned her to work double duty elsewhere on the set.

That makes it premeditated murder.

[HKMk23]

MOVE ‘ZIG’ FOR SWIFT JUSTICE!!