Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

SpeedConcept wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think the issue for Baldwin is whether he was entitled to trust the process in place intended to ensure the safety of the firearm on the set. That is critical to his defence. Even if he was, the question then arises as to whether he had any independent responsibility to check the safety of the weapon once he had been advised it was safe. If it is decided that he did then he could be seen as negligent if he failed to do that. However that negligence would generally need to be extreme for him to become criminally liable. In the circumstances it could be argued he was possibly too casual with his use of the weapon - even careless - but that falls substantially short of the gross negligence likely necessary to decide involuntary manslaughter.

According to New Mexico case law, it doesn’t matter if he was entitled to trust the process or not. If the gun is in your hand when it went off, you’re liable.

Here’s the relevant paragraph from NM vs Gilliam that describes just that for involuntary manslaughter.

“It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.”

Link:lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-...

Armstronglivs wrote:

SpeedConcept wrote:

According to New Mexico case law, it doesn’t matter if he was entitled to trust the process or not. If the gun is in your hand when it went off, you’re liable.

Here’s the relevant paragraph from NM vs Gilliam that describes just that for involuntary manslaughter.

“It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.”

Link:lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-...

The critical phrase is "without due caution and circumspection". If an actor is handed a firearm for their role and are told the gun is safe by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that then they should be able to trust that advice or the safety process is meaningless. If that process was not in place then the actor could be seen to have shown they handled the firearm "without due caution and circumspection" if they pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger without first checking the gun was not loaded. If the case law you refer to above renders the safety process irrelevant and all responsibility falls in the actor alone then in countless Westerns actors have been at risk of committing involuntary manslaughter and being prosecuted and found guilty. I would suggest the issue here may boil down to whether despite the safety processes in place the actor is required to independently check the gun to ensure it isn't loaded with bullets. I haven't seen any legal experts say that is the law on a movie set.

Armstronglivs wrote:

SpeedConcept wrote:

According to New Mexico case law, it doesn’t matter if he was entitled to trust the process or not. If the gun is in your hand when it went off, you’re liable.

Here’s the relevant paragraph from NM vs Gilliam that describes just that for involuntary manslaughter.

“It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.”

Link:lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-...

The critical phrase is "without due caution and circumspection". If an actor is handed a firearm for their role and are told the gun is safe by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that then they should be able to trust that advice or the safety process is meaningless. If that process was not in place then the actor could be seen to have shown they handled the firearm "without due caution and circumspection" if they pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger without first checking the gun was not loaded. If the case law you refer to above renders the safety process irrelevant and all responsibility falls in the actor alone then in countless Westerns actors have been at risk of committing involuntary manslaughter and being prosecuted and found guilty. I would suggest the issue here may boil down to whether despite the safety processes in place the actor is required to independently check the gun to ensure it isn't loaded with bullets. I haven't seen any legal experts say that is the law on a movie set.

Brosoin wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The critical phrase is "without due caution and circumspection". If an actor is handed a firearm for their role and are told the gun is safe by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that then they should be able to trust that advice or the safety process is meaningless. If that process was not in place then the actor could be seen to have shown they handled the firearm "without due caution and circumspection" if they pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger without first checking the gun was not loaded. If the case law you refer to above renders the safety process irrelevant and all responsibility falls in the actor alone then in countless Westerns actors have been at risk of committing involuntary manslaughter and being prosecuted and found guilty. I would suggest the issue here may boil down to whether despite the safety processes in place the actor is required to independently check the gun to ensure it isn't loaded with bullets. I haven't seen any legal experts say that is the law on a movie set.

Are you mentally handicapped? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It would explain a lot though.

SpeedConcept wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The critical phrase is "without due caution and circumspection". If an actor is handed a firearm for their role and are told the gun is safe by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that then they should be able to trust that advice or the safety process is meaningless. If that process was not in place then the actor could be seen to have shown they handled the firearm "without due caution and circumspection" if they pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger without first checking the gun was not loaded. If the case law you refer to above renders the safety process irrelevant and all responsibility falls in the actor alone then in countless Westerns actors have been at risk of committing involuntary manslaughter and being prosecuted and found guilty. I would suggest the issue here may boil down to whether despite the safety processes in place the actor is required to independently check the gun to ensure it isn't loaded with bullets. I haven't seen any legal experts say that is the law on a movie set.

Here’s an excellent legal analysis of the case that touches on your questions. Anytime a stunt occurs, the production (everyone involved) is at risk of legal jeopardy if something goes wrong. There is no special actors court that absolves them of responsibility if something goes wrong. They mitigate that risk through industry guidelines, protocols, etc that help ensure nothing goes wrong.

Link:legalinsurrection.com/2023/01/manslaug...

freewater Fredddd wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A contrary view from Harvard professor of law, Nancy Gertner.

Link:hls.harvard.edu/today/harvard-law-expe...

Gertner: Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense is that there was no requirement or standard that an actor independently check the gun he was given after it was declared to be “cold” by others on the set. His status as a producer on the film complicates his obligations to a degree, but as some of the news suggests, many individuals are producers in name only. The question is whether the prosecutor will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a clear obligation to check the weapon, which he ignored, whether as actor or producer. He also has an argument that precisely because this prosecution is unprecedented, it violates due process; he would have had no notice of any obligation to independently check the weapon.

Are you going to waste 4 months of your life again making 1000s of posts on this stupid thread? Yeah, I thought so.