Current Events > Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alec-baldwin-charged-manslaughter-fatal-shooting-set-rust-d-says-rcna7189

get this man behind bars pronto before he strikes again

Wow. Thought it was an accident. Guess we'll see.

Charges will go nowhere lol

Charge but not convicted. These people are wealthy, they'll never see the inside of a prison cell.

Late by 12 seconds. Slimmest margin I've seen for CE topics.

CommonStar posted...

Charge but not convicted. These people are wealthy, they'll never see the inside of a prison cell.

Especially since he's blatantly innocent

Did it say this on a splenda pack?

Cocytus posted...

Wow. Thought it was an accident. Guess we'll see.

I mean that is what involuntary manslaughter is by definition

SMAP- posted...

I mean that is what involuntary manslaughter is by definition

Well you know I guess I just don't know all the facts besides what I see and read in the news. To me, he took what he thought was a prop gun and playfully made a bang bang type play at the camera. He's a fucking actor, that's the kind of shit they do. But perhaps they have a lot more facts in the case that lead to some other conclusion.

SMAP- posted...

I mean that is what involuntary manslaughter is by definition

Involuntary Manslaughter is an accident due to recklessness, which wasn't the case on his part.

Hes rich and has a lot of money. He will never see one minute of jail.

Ill be surprised if he even gets probation

Cocytus posted...

Well you know I guess I just don't know all the facts besides what I see and read in the news. To me, he took what he thought was a prop gun and playfully made a bang bang type play at the camera. He's a fucking actor, that's the kind of shit they do. But perhaps they have a lot more facts in the case that lead to some other conclusion.

He wasn't just an actor. He was also a producer on the film.

SenlinDescends posted...

Involuntary Manslaughter is an accident due to recklessness, which wasn't the case on his part.

hence the word accident. Which the above user said

He's a piece of shit

SMAP- posted...

hence the word accident. Which the above user said

An accident that doesn't qualify as involuntary manslaughter, yes.

SenlinDescends posted...

An accident that doesn't qualify as involuntary manslaughter, yes.

"Accident" was literally in the definition you used.

lolife67 posted...

"Accident" was literally in the definition you used.

It's part of the definition. The other part is where it doesn't qualify. I know words are hard, but try to keep up.

His punishment? Record a 30-second apology on TikTok.

The charges for Baldwin are likely more because he's producer, but even that is a stretch. They have to prove both that he was directly responsible for hiring the armorer, and prove that he should've known she wasn't qualified.

SenlinDescends posted...

It's part of the definition. The other part is where it doesn't qualify. I know words are hard, but try to keep up.

the only argument I was making is that it being charged as such does not mean its not an accident, which is what the original poster was implying

yeah he wont do any time

SenlinDescends posted...

It's part of the definition. The other part is where it doesn't qualify. I know words are hard, but try to keep up.

Nobody ever denied the other part, though? Maybe you should try to "keep up?"

Didn't this happen because they were using scabs to get around their normal safety crew's union issues? His responsibility as producer towards maintaining safety standards on set combined with his personal involvment at pointing and shooting a loaded prop gun at people between takes as a joke might be enough to get him probation or a hefty fine, but I don't see him getting jailtime here. He had no reason to expect it was loaded with real ammo, but he had no reason to be fake shooting people either and the mistake was a direct result of conditions he created through his decision to move forward with a different safety crew. There's also the issue of him saying he didn't pull the trigger, which if it's a lie doesn't help his case.

There are situations where he would still be liable for involuntary manslaughter if they turn out to be true. For instance, if he grabbed a gun from the armorer's work space without verifying with the armorer that it was a safe prop to use, then he would still be liable enough for involuntary manslaughter.

With that said, the most likely consequence will be a plea deal that bumps it down to probation of some sort, whereas a trial would be difficult to prove that Baldwin has sufficient individual liability for the death when a professional armorer was present and in charge of all firearms. It may be possible but it may devolve to he-said-she-said which is typically insufficient for a conviction.

s0nicfan posted...

Didn't this happen because they were using scabs to get around their normal safety crew's union issues?

Yes

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I just looked it up to be sure, so that I made sure that I knew, so I think I know...

"In Penal Code 192b PC, California defines involuntary manslaughter as the unintentional killing of a person while committing another crime or dangerous act."

s0nicfan posted...

Didn't this happen because they were using scabs to get around their normal safety crew's union issues? His responsibility as producer towards maintaining safety standards on set combined with his personal involvment at pointing and shooting a loaded prop gun at people between takes as a joke might be enough to get him probation or a hefty fine, but I don't see him getting jailtime here. He had no reason to expect it was loaded with real ammo, but he had no reason to be fake shooting people either and the mistake was a direct result of conditions he created through his decision to move forward with a different safety crew. There's also the issue of him saying he didn't pull the trigger, which if it's a lie doesn't help his case.

His role as a producer would only really be relevant in a civil case, as your handling of a firearm is unrelated to your job description in a criminal sense.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

His role as a producer would only really be relevant in a civil case, as your handling of a firearm is unrelated to your job description in a criminal sense.

It's only potentially relevant in the sense that he is potentially both responsible for the mistake but also creating the unsafe conditions that led to the mistake in the first place. If he was just the guy who pulled the trigger that would be one thing, but if he's also the guy who made filming unsafe in the first place it adds an unusual twist to the whole situation.

He'll get probation. Nobody thinks he's a danger. Doesn't make a lot of sense to put him behind bars.

Cocytus posted...

I just looked it up to be sure, so that I made sure that I knew, so I think I know...

"In Penal Code 192b PC, California defines involuntary manslaughter as the unintentional killing of a person while committing another crime or dangerous act."

The State is New Mexico, their penal code describes it as

" 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] that might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony for involuntary manslaughter."

"Without Due Caution and Circumspection" will likely be the relevant portion of the clause for the jury to decide if this goes to trial. On a movie set, I would imagine most people would agree that having a professional armorer sign off on the weapon being safe to use as a prop is "due caution and circumspection". Similarly, if you went to a store and bought a fake gun off the shelf, you would have performed due caution and circumspection to assume with legal protection that it was not actually a real, loaded weapon when you take it out of it's packaging and "test fire" it for the first time. In both cases, you were told by the business who's job it is to produce safe prop toys that it was a safe prop toy. Thus, if an actual bullet was fired from the supposed "safe prop toy", the liability would fall on the business or employee who made the mistake.

Similarly, if you went to a mechanic to fix a broken brake fluid line, and the mechanic told you they fixed the broken brake line, you would not be liable for hopping on the nearby highway and crashing into someone because you're brake lines were still not fixed.

CommonStar posted...

Charge but not convicted. These people are wealthy, they'll never see the inside of a prison cell.

he was handed a fucking gun by incompetent crew. How is any of that his fault

s0nicfan posted...

It's only potentially relevant in the sense that he is potentially both responsible for the mistake but also creating the unsafe conditions that led to the mistake in the first place. If he was just the guy who pulled the trigger that would be one thing, but if he's also the guy who made filming unsafe in the first place it adds an unusual twist to the whole situation.

"Made it unsafe" is vague and undefined. What specifically did he do regarding the set that legally falls within the scope New Mexico's definition of manslaughter and is directly relevant to the death of the employee? Did he hire an armorer that did not actually have a license to work in that field, then took advice from them on how to use a firearm? The armorer is the only other employee that we're aware of that had any direct influence on the firearm used to shoot the two victims. It doesn't matter if some scabs were building a shoddy set somewhere in the background with duck tape and chewing gum. His decisions as a producer would need to have had a direct and obvious causal relationship to the shooting for it to be relevant in a criminal case. Just saying "people thought the set was unsafe" is not legally admissible.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

"Made it unsafe" is vague and undefined. What specifically did he do regarding the set that legally falls within the scope New Mexico's definition of manslaughter and is directly relevant to the death of the employee? Did he hire an armorer that did not actually have a license to work in that field, then took advice from them on how to use a firearm? The armorer is the only other employee that we're aware of that had any direct influence on the firearm used to shoot the two victims. It doesn't matter if some scabs were building a shoddy set somewhere in the background with duck tape and chewing gum. His decisions as a producer would need to have had a direct and obvious causal relationship to the shooting for it to be relevant in a criminal case. Just saying "people thought the set was unsafe" is not legally admissible.

I mean... the answer to most of those questions is presumably in the hands of the DA which is why they said they had enough evidence to charge, but I guess we'll all find out in trial. Since the armorer is ALSO being charged, presumably that's a factor.

MileyVirus0 posted...

he was handed a fucking gun by incompetent crew. How is any of that his fault

Do you know for a fact that he was handed a loaded gun? No, you don't. None of us do. We weren't there. No facts have been proven to this point. We have some basic testimony without an oath and that's about it.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/0/5/AASfTXAAEGsl.jpg

Pogo_Marimo posted...

There are situations where he would still be liable for involuntary manslaughter if they turn out to be true. For instance, if he grabbed a gun from the armorer's work space without verifying with the armorer that it was a safe prop to use, then he would still be liable enough for involuntary manslaughter.

IIRC the gun handler had a history of gross negligence and incompetence. For example, to wind down during breaks on set she would target practice with the stage guns using live ammo. That's considered extremely reckless and stupid in her profession as you wouldn't put live ammo in the stage gun used for closeups. Baldwin had the power to fire her, but it's an open question if he knew about her history of incompetence.

Has it been disclosed why live ammo was even on the set??

EDIT - nm, the previous post answers my question.

Is the armorer on trial?

Pogo_Marimo posted...

The State is New Mexico

Ah, shit, sorry, forgot to account for that. See, presumptions...

He's not at fault but the film industry should really ban functional guns on set. There's no point in using blanks anyways when everything is added in post.

I agree with him being charged. If you are handling guns that have the capacity to live fire then all precautions should be taken when using them.

Next I'll say the issue sounds off to me since the revolver is a single acton(need to pull the hammer back separately from pulling the trigger). From what Baldwin said he was doing the revolver would be very unlikely to fire unless the trigger was switched for a hair trigger. So that accompanied with the armorer putting live rounds in the guns at various times to target practice makes me curious why the armorer isn't charged with negligence or something as well.

MileyVirus0 posted...

he was handed a fucking gun by incompetent crew. How is any of that his fault

Isn't he the one who hired the crew? >_>

The armorer should be charged for it not him

Error1355 posted...

Isn't he the one who hired the crew? >_>

His producing credit is most likely just a vanity credit. I really, really doubt he had any hand in hiring any of the on set safety people.

Destroyer53 posted...

I agree with him being charged. If you are handling guns that have the capacity to live fire then all precautions should be taken when using them.

I'll agree with you there, if you are holding a real weapon, you should believe it's capable of being fired. But that's the thing, like, what the fuck do I, a typical citizen, know about movie prop guns, besides what I hear, firing pins removed, blanks, etc.

Error1355 posted...

Isn't he the one who hired the crew? >_>

Bingo. Baldwin was also running things behind the scenes. I believe he was like an executive producer? Its not like he was just some actor on set.

Cocytus posted...

I'll agree with you there, if you are holding a real weapon, you should believe it's capable of being fired. But that's the thing, like, what the fuck do I, a typical citizen, know about movie prop guns, besides what I hear, firing pins removed, blanks, etc.

The one they used on set was a fully functioning gun essentially, which isnt uncommon. The thing is that Baldwin pretty much followed longstanding safety protocol. Actors are not supposed to check the gun prior to shooting it, there's two other people on set who's job it is to make sure it wasn't hot. If the actor ends up checking the gun then that whole process has to be restarted per safety guidelines.

FAQ-Checker posted...

Bingo. Baldwin was also running things behind the scenes. I believe he was like an executive producer? Its not like he was just some actor on set.

Being producer doesn't mean you're running things. It's very likely it was just a vanity credit as someone else named.

Smashingpmkns posted...

The one they used on set was a fully functioning gun essentially, which isnt uncommon. The thing is that Baldwin pretty much followed longstanding safety protocol. Actors are not supposed to check the gun prior to shooting it, there's two other people on set who's job it is to make sure it wasn't hot. If the actor ends up checking the gun then that whole process has to be restarted per safety guidelines.

Yeah, but Baldwins involvement goes beyond just being the actor who pulled the trigger. This movie was partly his project and the crew was apparently running wild. They were shooting out in the desert with live ammo between takes and theres speculation that the live ammo they were fucking around with got mixed in with the blanks. Production was a disaster and Baldwin had his hand in that.