He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger without verifying the chamber was empty. That's negligence at best (and I really don't think it's anything more than that).
Famous people are hard to convict. The defense can always find that one juror.
I have no knowledge about how firearms are used on sets, but how is it even possible and a live round makes it to a movie set? Why would there even be a possibility of that happening?Alec Baldwin to be charged with manslaughter in fatal 'Rust' shooting, DA says
Baldwin was rehearsing with a pistol while filming “Rust” in New Mexico in October 2021 when it went off, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding the director.www.nbcnews.com
One complicating factor for him is he was the executive producer of the movie as well. It's pretty clear the "tone at the top" regarding firearm safety on that set was very lax to say the least. So he'll have to be responsible for that too. For the record, I don't think he will, or should, do much jail time for it. I figure worst case, he'll get maybe 3 months.
The problem here is he was handed the gun by a (supposed) professional for the purposes of it being a prop, and can not be expected to have any expectation that it could ever fire.
I don't think he will either. And provided nothing really bad comes out, I don't think he should, provided he can pay the family enough that they bless a deal with no jail time. That's probably an unpopular belief I have, but if you have the resources to at least somewhat compensate the victims, I'd rather the victims get more money and the state not spend as much money incarcerating the perpetrator (whether with no jail or less jail) in cases involving criminal negligence or reckless behavior that wasn't intended to hurt anybody.
^THIS^
And, if the shot was part of the scene, I think that clears him. But I don't think the shot was part of the scene, hence his story about not pulling the trigger.
Thats a factor, but IMO irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, he was handed a prop. Might as well have been a water gun. You can't be reckless with something you have no reasonable expectation of being dangerous. That would be like charging vehicular homicide on a driver because the repair shop cut the brakes by accident.
He knew it wasn't altered not to fire. He assumed it wasn't loaded because it was supposed to be checked by an overworked armorer who was forced to work two jobs on that film. Which might be more of a mitigating factor if he wasn't ultimately the one who forced her to work two jobs.
It was a known live weapon. It was supposed to have a dummy round in it, or no round at all. Dummy rounds can malfunction and cause serious injury. Everyone on earth knows to never assume a gun is empty. There are risks associated with handling a gun, regardless of what you assume is or isn't in it.
Were you ever taught gun safety? Or common sense gun protocols? I knew better than Baldwin when I was 6 when I got a Daisy BB Gun thanks to my Dad.
Regardless of what happened, only four things matter. Who brought the live ammo on set, who was in charge of the live ammo, who was in charge of the firearm, and who handed it to Alec. Those are precisely the 4 things I would bring up to the jury. An actor was handed a gun, he went through the walk-through on the scene. Pointed the gun as instructed, pulled the trigger whether intending to or not.
When the scene calls for you to point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger, that is what you do.
I agree with most of what you write.
Or ever have a live motherfucking round in it. How. Thefuck. Does. That. Happen.
Except the person he relied on was a professional whose sole job was to do that. SHE was clearly negligent, and I just don't see how you can transfer her negligence onto Baldwin. Relying on a professional to have done their job seems like a bedrock principle of law as acceptable conduct, not negligence.
IMO, only if he had actual responsibility in that role. If its a title only thing, it's irrelevant. But the law may impart importance on it, I don't know.
Yes, but what someone should or should not do is not the same as legal or illegal conduct.
My take would be the same regardless of the person. Not surprised you don't think that way.
I think we're talking past each other some.
We often differentiate between the same acts based on whether something bad happened, even if logically the culpability is the same. Hell, we give people a break on attempting to do something bad and just being unsuccessful at it. But if actors are recklessly pointing guns at other people and their excuse is they're using a real gun as a prop, I'm guessing that probably could be charged in a lot of jurisdictions even if it isn't in practice, just like a lot of other reckless acts.
www.justia.com
Not really. I think the difference is you are defining behavior with a prop gun as reckless, when it's really hard to exhibit reckless behavior with something that's supposed to be harmless per the professional that handed it to you. I think you can define it that way for a scenario where a buddy handed you a gun and said it was unloaded, but I think the standard has to be different when it's a professional that hands it to you and when the whole reason you have it is for a job.
