Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





You ready? You look ready.
Involuntary manslaughter is the right charge and totally warranted.

"The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant recklessly or negligently commits an act that results in the death of another person."

source: https://www.justia.com/criminal/offe...-manslaughter/

Kinda an open shut case if you ask me. Responsible firearm handling doesn't ever fall to one person. It falls upon all.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



A system of cells interlinked

Kinda an open shut case if you ask me. Responsible firearm handling doesn't ever fall to one person. It falls upon all.
This. I was told during my firearms safety course that no matter what you think or are told the state of a firearm is, that once it is in your hands, you are responsible for "making sure it is safe."

Makes total sense to me.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



I don't know that a jury will convict. Baldwin will be able to pay for the best defense money can buy, and star-power is curious thing. However, it is appropriate that he at least stand trial and I agree that the charge appears appropriate.



I like to know what his line of defense will be? Assuming he doesn't plea bargain which could be the case. Any legalize-thoughts on what his defense would be if he pleads innocent to the charges?



I like to know what his line of defense will be? Assuming he doesn't plea bargain which could be the case. Any legalize-thoughts on what his defense would be if he pleads innocent to the charges?
His last public statements (I believe) contended that he never even touched the trigger - and that the gun somehow spontaneously fired on its own. That's some defense story!



His last public statements (I believe) contended that he never even touched the trigger - and that the gun somehow spontaneously fired on its own. That's some defense story!
I remember he said that about not pulling the trigger and I didn't believe it. Though it might be a bit of legal wrangling as if he claims he didn't pull the trigger then the prosecutor will have to prove that he did. It also probably gives his defense team a chance to plea bargain down to a lesser charge. But remember I'm not an attorney though I once played one in my own head!



I'm sure there are a lot of facts that haven't been made public, which will be critical at trial.

But I've wondered what in God's name was any live ammunition doing on the set? What possible purpose could it have served? Why would live ammunition be doing on ANY movie set? It seems to me that alone would bear responsibility by the producers.

Baldwin is a liar, but he won't do any jail time. I've read that the maximum penalty in Texas for involuntary manslaughter is 18 months. My guess is that he'll get fined, probably some community service. But Sedai is right. Baldwin was negligent in not checking the cartridges himself.

From what little I know about the case, the armorer is the most culpable. Why would she put live ammo in the pistol, or if she didn't, why wouldn't she have checked it before handing it to Baldwin? I believe she'll do some time. Not much though.

I believe that the deceased's family has already settled with the producers in a wrongful death suit.



I like to know what his line of defense will be? Assuming he doesn't plea bargain which could be the case. Any legalize-thoughts on what his defense would be if he pleads innocent to the charges?
I will reserve judgment on this case until it is presented at trial. It is very possible that more may come up that may not be publicly known right now that will make a guilty verdict more likely. This is, however, a little bit of an unusual application of involuntary manslaughter law and I think it may be difficult to get a conviction, especially for Baldwin, on these facts. Involuntary manslaughter is usually a willful act that the person has knowledge that they are committing. For example, the classic example is a drunk driver. Someone chooses to drink, chooses to drive, knows they have drank, is aware that that could pose a threat to other motorists, and chooses to act anyway. If someone is killed, they may not have intended that, so it can be considered accidental, but the act itself is known and is freely chosen and willfully done. Another example would be texting while driving, hitting someone and killing them. The person knows they are texting and that texting could present a danger if they are not keeping their eyes on the road, and chooses to act recklessly anyway. Another case is Conrad Murray, who prescribed medication to Michael Jackson that killed him when the use of the medication, to sleep, was not an appropriate indication. He knew he was prescribing the medication. He knew that that propofol can be deadly, he knew that prescribing it for sleep was not an approved medical use, as its used as an anesthetic for surgeries. He may not have intended to kill Jackson, but the acts were entered into knowingly and volitionally, and the danger was known and obvious. This case presents very different facts.

In the case of Baldwin, he is alleging that he didn't actually know that the gun had live rounds in it. There is no evidence that he was aware of that that has been presented. Yes, he willfully used the gun and willfully pointed it at Hutchins, but he may argue that he wasn't aware that doing so posed a danger, since he thought the gun had dummy bullets in it. It is an interesting legal question that this case presents--can involuntary manslaughter be applied under facts such as these, where the act is willful, but the danger may not actually be known? The question is here, should it have been known? Did Baldwin have a duty to check so that he would know? That's a different question.

I think Baldwin's defense may be that he didn't know, that it wasn't his responsibility to check the gun himself, because that is the job of the armorer. That he had in fact been told the gun did not have live rounds by David Halls, and that he relied on that. Given his reliance on that, he didn't know there was a danger posed by him using the gun in the scene. I think he may argue that although he was a producer, he likely wasn't involved with the hiring decisions of who the armorer was going to be, who turned out to be unqualified. That he didn't make decisions around the safety protocols on the set, and that he was likely unaware of the extent of the safety infractions that had occurred previously on the set. That he was totally unaware that live rounds were on the set, or that they had been put into the gun, and that he doesn't know why the armorer didn't check for that before the gun was handed to him. That his role as a producer focused on other aspects of the production, or it was a role in name only that is sometimes given to actors as a fringe benefit and that he really didn't operate in a producing capacity on this film, though he may not want to admit that he was paid money to not act as a producer, so he may or may not say that.

Another thing that I will be very interested in learning from this case is, how much is Alec Baldwin's role as a producer emphasized? I suspect that the prosecutors may lean more on that than his role as an actor, and say that his non-actions to check the gun has to be viewed in context of a set that had very lax security protocols, that there were decisions made to cut costs, that previous safety incidents were not taken seriously and dealt with, which would have likely prevented this tragedy, and that as a producer, Baldwin should be held accountable for that. I think that might be what they mean by the charges being filed due to the "totality of the circumstances." This is a very interesting and thought provoking case that I will likely follow because of the issues it presents.



If he's being charged because of his role as a producer, what of the other producers?



Maybe my upbringing is different than other people's but I don't understand how Alec Baldwin could be so trusting of other people.

If you were given a real gun with "fake ammo" to shoot at a person, wouldn't you at least open up the gun to check the ammo? Check if the ammo is real or if it has ammo at all? Wouldn't you at least fire a warning shot into the ground before firing it at a human being?

Even if you felt like the armorer were competent, and there's a 99.9% chance it's fine, the risk is so consequential, that you need to rule out even the 0.01% risk.



@AKA23 Good post, with many valid thoughts that were well written. I will highlight a few of your thoughts and comment on them...

...This is, however, a little bit of an unusual application of involuntary manslaughter law and I think it may be difficult to get a conviction, especially for Baldwin, on these facts. Involuntary manslaughter is usually a willful act that the person has knowledge that they are committing. For example, the classic example is a drunk driver. Someone chooses to drink, chooses to drive, knows they have drank, is aware that that could pose a threat to other motorists, and chooses to act anyway. If someone is killed, they may not have intended that, so it can be considered accidental, but the act itself is known and is freely chosen and willfully done...
Agreed, that an involuntary manslaughter conviction would be hard to prove in court.

I wouldn't be surprised that the prosecutor in asking for involuntary manslaughter charges did that so they could have 'wiggle room' to plea bargain down to a lesser charge like reckless endangerment...and that's the charge I predict Baldwin will be found guilty of...He might even agree to it himself if it's indeed plea bargained.


I think Baldwin's defense may be that he didn't know, that it wasn't his responsibility to check the gun himself, because that is the job of the armorer. That he had in fact been told the gun did not have live rounds by David Halls, and that he relied on that. Given his reliance on that, he didn't know there was a danger posed by him using the gun in the scene.
I would think that would be his line of defense. It's still not clear to me if the director or the cinematographer who was killed had actually directed Baldwin to shoot into the camera so as to set up the camera angle for the actual scene...or was that Baldwin's idea?


I think he may argue that although he was a producer, he likely wasn't involved with the hiring decisions of who the armorer was going to be, who turned out to be unqualified. That he didn't make decisions around the safety protocols on the set, and that he was likely unaware of the extent of the safety infractions that had occurred previously on the set.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Baldwin is being charged for his actions as the actor who fired the shot that killed the cinematographer. I don't believe he's been charged as a producer for creating an overall dangerous situation on the set.



People keep saying you don't ever point a gun at a person, that is true! But in movie making it's been done 1000s and 1000s of times because of cinematic necessity.

Here's just one example, a clip from The Deer Hunter where you can clearly see the actors placing a gun against their head and pulling the trigger.



A system of cells interlinked
Now rumors are floating around that Baldwin also had live ammo found in his prop ammo belt. This would lead me to believe that the cast and crew were out clowning around, shooting guns on their down time, and got extremely careless in handling and keeping track of the ammo. If this rumor about the ammo is true, that is.



Now rumors are floating around that Baldwin also had live ammo found in his prop ammo belt. This would lead me to believe that the cast and crew were out clowning around, shooting guns on their down time, and got extremely careless in handling and keeping track of the ammo. If this rumor about the ammo is true, that is.
Interesting, thanks for posting that...

Wasn't it confirmed by some of the armorer's friends that she and her friends had days earlier taken the gun Baldwin was using in the movie and fired it for real somewhere nearby for fun? I'm pretty sure someone on this thread posted a news link about that.

I also wonder if real ammo was used on the set to be filmed, say like a scene where someone grabs a handful of bullets or a closeup of a bullet being loaded was part of the plan filming. Of course dummy prop bullets should've been used for close ups but maybe they used real ammo to save on money.... or real ammo could've gotten on the set from when the armorer and her friends were joy shooting the gun.



Is it easy for a layperson to distinguish between a live round and a dummy?



Is it easy for a layperson to distinguish between a live round and a dummy?
I just did an internet search for that and you can find photos of live and dummy rounds. How easy is it to tell? I guess that depends if the person checking believes there to be a potential problem or not?

One thing is interesting, I'm guessing the police did both fingerprinting and DNA analyzes from the ammo that was in the gun. That might tell who put the live rounds in there. Though it doesn't resolve the legal culpability of Baldwin for potentially pulling the trigger.



Ghouls, vampires, werewolves... let's party.
Though it doesn't resolve the legal culpability of Baldwin for potentially pulling the trigger.
An elementary rule of handling firearms is to never point it at anyone whether you think it's loaded of not. It makes no difference. It's just common sense.