Posted on 04/20/2023 3:31:46 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
Halyna Hutchins is dead, shot by Alec Baldwin. That is indisputable. However, Alec walks away as if nothing happened.
Hopefully, you are correct.
I’m sure there will be civil torts, I’m not sure about the outcome of them.
Your aspirin strawman is not analogous. And you are ignorant of the law in your subsequent posts. NM law is very clear on what negligence and manslaughter are. You wanting to re-assign responsibility to a gun maker or someone other than the person handling the gun does not make a legal argument.
Generally speaking, that is correct.
How did the deadly cartridge get there?
Producer Alec Baldwin overrode the Armorer's and Safety personnel authority and orders.
Baldwin allowed set personnel and outsiders to use, and practice with, live ammunition in their off hours on the set.
In effect, Baldwin allowed people to Play With Guns on the set.
Here are the tests for criminal negligence:
1) The defendant acted so recklessly that they created a high risk of death, and/or major bodily injury;
2) That the defendant’s actions showed a disregard for human life, or an indifference to the consequences of their actions
3) Any reasonable person in the same or similar situation would have known that the actions would have probably resulted in harm or death to other people.
If someone is handed a gun by a professional armorer and told it is a cold gun, there is no chance the case would survive 3).
Try arguing that when NM law statutes:
Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-2-3 (2019)
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.
Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-2-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 2-3; 1994, ch. 23, § 2.
Particular attention to B. Its your revisionist view of law that has our nation going to hell in a hand basket.
Have you never heard of criminally negligent homicide?
____________________________________________________________
Have you ever prosecuted or defended a criminally negligent homicide case? Like the dozens that I have in my career as an attorney? Obviously not. An involuntary manslaughter case can be proven (generally) in one of two ways: Either the defendant intended to commit a misdemeanor, which resulted in an unintentional killing, or the defendant caused the death of another through “criminal negligence.” As an example of the first type, the wrestler-kid who recently sucker-punched the other wrestler clearly committed misdemeanor assault but, if the victim died as a result (even if 99.99% of other kids would not have died, this would be involuntary “misdemeanor-manslaughter.” Under the second type, “criminal negligence” is a very, very high standard and requires more than carelessness—instead, it requires that the defendant act with “reckless disregard for human life.” The defendant must intend to act in a criminally negligent manner. For example, I decide to drive blind-folded down I-75 and kill someone, or I drive 120 mph in a 55 mph zone and kill someone. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “UNINTENTIONAL” CRIME.
no. You’re incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
“In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for ‘guilty mind’) does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (’guilty act’).”
Further, mens rea has been clarified in many cases of modern jurisprudence with the Model Penal Code. Culpability does not necessitate intent (or “purpose”).
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/recklessness-and-model-penal-code
“The four mental states or types of culpability upon which criminal responsibility is based include purpose, knowledge, negligence, and recklessness.”
Under the Model Penal Code, which is a set of guidelines used by many states in the US, a person can be held legally accountable for crimes committed unintentionally if they acted recklessly or negligently. The Model Penal Code defines recklessness as a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur. Negligence is defined as a failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur.
As an example, drunk driving is a crime that is often prosecuted as a form of negligence or recklessness, depending on the circumstances of the case. In general, if a person decides to drink alcohol and then chooses to get behind the wheel of a car, they are acting recklessly and could be held legally accountable for any harm they cause as a result of their actions. In the case of drunk driving, a person who chooses to drink alcohol and then drive is consciously disregarding the risk that they may cause an accident and harm themselves or others.
There may very well be NO INTENT to harm anyone, but if you drink and drive you risk incarceration and can be charged with multiple crimes, depending on the specific situation.
Now, if you will return to my statement which you contradicted: “Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent”, you will find that I thoroughly demonstrated that you are wrong. You stated: “There is no such thing as an unintentional crime.” and I have proven this to be false. If it is not plain to you now, I can’t help you. When you continue to argue from a point of ignorance, you dig yourself deeper into a hole.
__________________________________________________________
First, citing Wikipedia isn’t exactly persuasive.
Second, unlike yourself, I have prosecuted and defended “involuntary manslaughter cases” and have taught criminal law.
Third, with the exception of non-jailable regulatory or minor traffic crimes, there are no 100% “strict liability” crimes. For example, the government does not have to prove that I knew I parked my car in a “no parking” zone.
Fourth—and most important—you are confusing the concept of “criminal intent” or “general intent” with “specific intent.” There is no such thing as a jailable criminal offense that lacks a “criminal intent.” By contrast, there are hundreds of crimes that do not require a “specific intent,” like involuntary manslaughter.
Some examples:
1) Person A gets tanked up at the bar, goes to what he thinks is his apartment, opens the door and walks in to shrieks of the women who live there. Burglary? No, because burglary requires a “specific intent” to commit a felony, e.g., rape, murder, etc. Breaking and entering (a crime with no specific intent requirement)? Probably not, because he did not have “criminal intent” in entereing the apartment. Burglary, like all crimes, has a “general” or “criminal” intent requirement, i.e., the intent to break and enter a dwelling. In addition, however, one can be a burglar only if he has, in addition to a general criminal intent, the “specific intent” to commit a felony inside the dwellling, e.g., rape, robbery, murder, etc.
2) Person A decides to drive his Porsche at 150 mph in a 55 mph zone and crashes into a car because of his excessive speed and kills the other driver. Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter? No, because Person A did not specifically intend to crash the car let alone kill anybody. Involuntary manslaughter? Yes. Although Person A had no “specific intent” to kill, he acted with “criminal intent” because he was “conscious of the risk” and intended “to act in a manner that created a high degree of risk of human life.” By contrast, if the driver had been carjacked at gunpoint and was ordered by the carjacker to drive 150 mph, he likely did not possess a general criminal intent to consciously disregard a known risk, etc.
Back to my point. Alex Baldwin did not act with “criminal intent” because: 1) he was not “conscious of the risk” and 2) he did not intend “to act in a manner that created a high degree of risk of human life.” Baldwin clearly did not know the gun had bullets in it, it was in fact a “prop” that was supposed to shoot blanks, and the production company or Baldwin hired a professional armorer to prevent the very type of freak accident that happened.
It is you, my friend, that is incorrect.
So, yes, “involuntary manslaughter” includes a general “criminal intent” requirement. Accordingly, you are wrong.
“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.
Perhaps.
I do wonder if Mister Baldwin might get a visit from Mister Conscience at some point, however.
Unlikely, one suspects.
I’m certain of it ...
Alec Baldwin Not Absolved In Fatal ‘Rust’ Shooting Despite Planned Dropping Of Charges, Prosecutors Say
https://deadline.com/2023/04/alec-baldwin-charges-dropped-rust-shooting-halyna-hutchins-1235329568/
... none of which means he’ll be convicted.
I’m not a lawyer, have not been to law school, and my vocation does not require a deep knowledge of the law, but I do have a personal interest in such matters.
So, anyone who is a lawyer or taught law should know much more than I do. However, this is the claim you’ve repeatedly made that I find very difficult to believe:
“There is no such thing as an unintentional crime.”
You mock citations from a generic source like Wikipedia (which merely serves to frame the discussion), but you cite zero authoritative sources yourself. So, perhaps you could trouble yourself to make at least a single citation of someone credible who agrees with your broad claim.
Now you’ve modified this original claim with some exceptions like “minor traffic offenses” and narrowed it to “jailable”. However, even with these considerations, I don’t readily see support for your claim.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html
“Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as mens rea, which is Latin for a guilty mind.”
Findlaw says “most”. Not “all”.
It further states: “Finally, there are some criminal laws that don’t require any mens rea or mental state. These strict liability laws apply to certain acts which entail criminal punishment regardless of intent...”
“Back to my point. Alex Baldwin did not act with ‘criminal intent’ because: 1) he was not ‘conscious of the risk’ and 2) he did not intend ‘to act in a manner that created a high degree of risk of human life.’”
I don’t think you have all of the facts. Baldwin has worked with guns on numerous film sets. He is an advocate for gun control BECAUSE he believes guns to be very dangerous. He knows that strict precautions are essential to keep people on a film set safe from guns. Not only as the lead actor using the gun that killed someone but also as a producer who carried more weight on production decisions than anyone because of his celebrity and notoriety, Baldwin had more responsibility than anyone else on the set.
1. corners were cut to save money on this production, including when it came to the experience level of the person hired and duties assigned related to gun safety
2. gun inspections were not always performed when safety guidelines called for them
3. a camera operator had already complained to the production manager about gun safety issues prior to the death
4. there had already been 2 accidental prop gun discharges
5. there was no investigation as to the cause and where safety procedures had not failed, though this is industry protocol
6. no safety meetings were called due to the gun misfires, though this is industry protocol
7. a crew member alerted the unit production manager of a 3rd gun misfire prior to the fatal incident, and no precautions were taken then either
8. on the day of the incident union crew members walked off the set due to complaints over safety issues, and they were replaced by non-union crew members
9. the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin when the fatality occurred, and this is against standard gun safety protocol
Baldwin claims he was never notified of safety issues. Email and text message records, as well as any other communications, should have been taken into evidence immediately after the incident. If a reasonable case can be made that Baldwin was truly unaware of any safety issues prior to the incident, he might have a strong defense against criminal liability as a producer.
As an actor who was also a producer, and as someone with many years of experience, Baldwin should have known the way he was handed the gun was not according to protocol.
I have a film degree and have had to deal with the improper handling of a gun on a film set. I was not even responsible for safety, but I had the production stopped to address the issue. While there might be some unusual circumstances I have not thought of, I think there is NEVER ANY reason to point a gun at another person on a film set. But if there is some cinematic reason it might be necessary, this is the time for everyone to be more than certain that no safety issue exists.
Baldwin was certainly not proactive in insuring gun safety on his film set. Intent or no intent, I can’t say with certainty that Baldwin is criminally liable for negligence and reckless behavior, but it sure looks that way from where I’m standing.
This isn’t over.
Did he intentionally point the weapon at her?
I wonder about this case. If Baldwin was supposed to fire at another actor and actually shoots him because the gun was really loaded, it’s not his fault. If he points the gun at the camerawoman and it goes off because of something he did, is he still covered?
Thanks for the update, Paal, ... you’re right, we’ll have to wait and see if he is convicted.
I am on vacation and using a phone to respond to comments, so I can’t give you the “War and Peace” version, but...
1) Strict Liability offenses—At English common law, which was adopted in the USA, there was no such thing as an “unintentional” crime. As America modernized, legislatures found the need to enact certain laws to penalize minor stuff, e.g., traffic violations and regulatory offenses. I don’t remember the Supreme Court case, but SCOTUS handed down a decision in the 60s or 70s that held that “strict liability” offenses were constitutional as long as the penalty attached to the crime was nominal, e.g., fines. For example, if I’m driving your car, which has an expired tag on it, it is NOT a defense in court that I did not know about the expired tag. I’m stuck paying the $25 fine. In short, in America we don’t put people in jail who do not possess some level of criminal intent.
2. Intent—Every crime has an intent element, and some have multiple intent elements. The crime of theft requires that I take someone else’s property with the specific intent to deprive that person of the property permanently. Example: If I mistakenly pick up the wrong luggage at the airport, I am innocent of theft on two grounds: first, I did not have a general criminal intent, because I thought the luggage was mine; second, obviously I also lacked the intent to convert the suitcase to my permanent possession. Example 2: I decide to take my neighbor’s new Corvette for a spin w/o tellingh him. Am I guilty of auto theft? No, because I intended to return the car. However, I am guilty of “unauthorized use” of the car, which is a general intent crime, i.e., just taking the car w/o authority is enough regardless of a “specific intent” to permanently steal the car.
Baldwin’s case—I will confess that I do not know every fact, but assuming that 1) Baldwin was uanaware of bullets being in the gun; and 2) Baldwin believed that the armorer checked the gun to ensure its safety, I don’t see any crime. Allow me to illustrate with some examples of involuntary manslaugher:
1) Person A drives down a residential, suburban street at 150 mph (in a 35 mph zone) and kills a kid who runs into the street to chase a ball. This is clearly involuntary manslaughter.
2) Person B leaves her baby in the car to go into the grocery store; she is gone for 45 minutes and the baby dies because it is 95 degrees out. This is also clearly involuntary manslaughter.
3) Alec Baldwin: Is an actor on the stage of a western where everybody on the set knows that he will be pointing and shooting a gun loaded with blanks and he proceeds to fire that gun and unwittingly kills a producer on the set because, unbeknowst to him, he was handed a prop gun with live ammo.
The test: If you, my friend, were a police officer and you witnessed Person A driving 150 mph on a suburban street BEFORE he hit the kid, would you have taken action to stop the driver? Answer: Hell yeah. If you were a police officer and you witnessed a young mom leave her baby in a hot car, would you immediately take action to stop it? Hell yeah. But.....If you, as a police officer, were watching Alec Baldwin’s actions on the set of “Rust,” would you have run out on the set and screamed: “Stop, this is reckless disregard for human life!” Answer: No, you would not. In fact, NOBODY on the set, including the victim, saw this coming. And that, in a nutshell, is why Baldwin did not commit the crime of involuntary manslaughter. There was no known, obvious risk of him pulling the trigger of the prop gun.
Did he intentionally point the weapon at her?
___________________________________________________
Did Clint Eastwood intentionally point his .44 Magnum at 100 plus people in the Dirty Harry movies? Did John Wayne point is M-1 Garand at the Jap actors on Guadalcanal? Under your theory, Clint and the Duke should have been charged with reckless endangerment. Right? No, because Eastwood and Wayne were acting under the assumption that their prop weapons were loaded with blanks.
What did Alec Baldwin do that is different than Eastwood or Wayne? In fact, from what I’ve read the production crew included a professional armorer in charge of preventing accidents by checking guns, etc. BTW, if EVERYBODY knew that Baldwin was acting “with reckless disregard for human life,” why did everybody, including the victim, remain on the set? In fact, NOBODY knew that there was any danger, including Baldwin.
Here’s a simple test: If you were a police officer that day on the set of “Rust,” and you saw Baldwin begin to raise his prop gun, would you have tried to stop him from pulling the trigger? Answer: No, because you would have assumed, like Baldwin, that the gun contained blanks.
He was negligent when he didn’t check the weapon and relied on others for safety.
I don’t know if they were shooting a scene or he ws just being an ass.
It is not that difficult and you can diffuse the situation with legal masturbation, but he didn’t check the gun, aimed at someone and pulled the trigger, killing them. This is not acting under the assumption. You don’t make assumptions when it comes to someone’s life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.