I suspect this will feature prominently in the Defense. As a gun owner, I can’t imagine pointing a gun at someone and deliberately pulling the trigger, much less doing so without verifying the chamber. That being said, I suspect the defense will drag up exert witness after expert witness to testify that it is movie production SOP to trust that the armorer has done all that for you.
OT: Alec Baldwin to be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter
- Thread starter She Mate Me
- Start date
I’m certainly not an Alec Baldwin guy, but this seems like BS unless I’m missing something.
I mean if anyone should be charged it should be the person responsible for props.
AGAIN, maybe I’m missing something.
Thank you for tying this. I was about to.
I walked through the Howitzer plant one time on a sales call. My escort walked me directly in front of one and I ducked a little. He looked at me funny and I said, “My daddy taught me to treat EVERY gun as loaded until you know different. I dang sure ain’t looking down the barrel of the Howitzer to see if she’s packing.” 100% true story. It’s how you have to think.
one morning last year I got up early at my folk’s place and grabbed my rifle I keep there and a couple of roundsI. Got in the stand, and sat down to load it. Safety was off, round was chambered. I didn’t leave it like that. Wasn’t my Dad’s fault for leaving it in that condition. He had a good reason to. It was my fault for slipping up because I was sleepy. It’s the first thing I think about now when I touch a rifle now. I checked my AR 3 times a few days ago before I ever walked out the door (once when I got it out of the safe, again an hour later when I picked it up off the bed, and again before I walked out the door - forgot I had just rechecked it)
I 100% agree with all that. I'd never point one of my guns at someone, let along have my finger inside the trigger housing if I didn't intend to use it. I just don't understand how a live round makes it to a set. How?
Not sure how the process works, but since Baldwin WAS the one with the gun, pulling the trigger he would have to be responsible on some level. You would think that the armorer would have to demonstrate to Baldwin that the gun was not loaded right before he gave it to him.
And even then it should have only been a blank, not an actual bullet. Just nuts to use a live rounds in a situation like that. If that's the way the set was run, you damn right the producers (all of them) should be prosecuted too.
And even then it should have only been a blank, not an actual bullet. Just nuts to use a live rounds in a situation like that. If that's the way the set was run, you damn right the producers (all of them) should be prosecuted too.
Again, I think a lot of our difference in opinion is based on you seeing it as a prop gun. It obviously was not a prop gun. It was a gun being used as a prop. If it was really supposed to be a prop gun that couldn't shoot, then I think I agree with your position. But to me, a gun being used as a prop should be treated as a gun and if he knew it was a firearm that could shoot, he has some risk here.
I think the difference of opinion on this largely comes from people's backgrounds with guns. I think for most gunowners, a gun is a gun and they have trouble seeing pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger as anything but reckless. But you're right that it's not a backyard scenario and that makes it different. That's why to me, the line is between pulling the trigger as part of the scene versus pulling the trigger when they weren't doing a scene (or running through a scene). If he did it as part of the directions, yes, that's the armorer's job to make sure it's safe. When he's not following the armorer's directions, he's got a gun in his hand and normal rules should apply (e.g., assume it's loaded, don't point it at anything you don't want to kill, etc).
I'm sure there is caselaw that can be applied to the case but possibly not film set specific. I suspect there will be a lot of testimony about how film sets usually operate and probably talk about other film set deaths with firearms (Brandon Lee is the only one I can think of off hand) and what precautions have been made standard after each one. If he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary for film sets, I would not think you could get an entire jury to convict him, even if what is "ordinary for film sets" turns out to seem crazy to most gun owners.
It is crazy to try understanding how this happened. There should be so many safe guards this is near impossible. Number one, keep firearms under look and key unless actively using; two, have "dummy rounds" clear distinguishable whether it means painting them orange or whatever; three, make everyone who handles a firearm, including producers, directors and actors, under go training on weapons usage and safety prior to each use. Lastly, don't use a working firearm in a film unless absolutely necessary.
On the first, any item handed to you to use on set, is a prop. Some are just real items, some are adjusted real items, and some are complete fakes that in substance are nothing like the real item but look it. All are props. Often, they are indistinguishable to the untrained individual. There is no "real gun" on a set unless you snuck it in. As such, it's a prop, and the only reasonable position is it's supposed to not shoot.
This does change if they were firing rounds on set.
Regarding the trigger, the actors job is to convincingly portray using the gun, so there is some amount of familiarity he must master with the prop. Pulling the trigger while pointed at someone still rises to a level of unreasonableness, but not if he merely had his finger within the trigger guard and did not mean to pull the trigger.
What I think will matter is what instructions Baldwin was given. If the armorer testifies that she told him to treat it as a live weapon and he ignored her, that's bad for him. Absent any kind of evidence like that, this smacks of the kind of political prosecution you say you are against, but aren't in practice.
It isnt surprising to see a push to use airsoft and add CGI gunfire.
If the expectation is some thespian who studied at Julliard and is in a movie version of a Broadway production to know if a gun prop has a real bullet or a blank, then they need to just paint a nerf toygun black and make 'pew pew' sounds when shooting.
A movie/tv show/production has a trained person there to load weapons and ensure they are safe with blanks. Those using the guns should have experience at a range if the production is big enough, otherwise it needs to be a discussion on set. The trained professional that is the only person who should load a gun with blanks then gives the gun to the actor. Everyone on set should trust this process and expecting individual actors to be experts in arms is absurd. They also shouldnt be expected to be experts in stunts, pyrotechnics, or anything else on set that they may have to interact with when acting. Thats why there are professionals to set up and maintain safe working conditions.
Really, just airsoft it up and CGI everything else. Keep guns off sets entirely if that is whats best.
^the above commentary is not about Baldwin. I have no idea what actually happened, just like everyone else here. We can all read claims, but that may or may not result in the full picture.
If the expectation is some thespian who studied at Julliard and is in a movie version of a Broadway production to know if a gun prop has a real bullet or a blank, then they need to just paint a nerf toygun black and make 'pew pew' sounds when shooting.
A movie/tv show/production has a trained person there to load weapons and ensure they are safe with blanks. Those using the guns should have experience at a range if the production is big enough, otherwise it needs to be a discussion on set. The trained professional that is the only person who should load a gun with blanks then gives the gun to the actor. Everyone on set should trust this process and expecting individual actors to be experts in arms is absurd. They also shouldnt be expected to be experts in stunts, pyrotechnics, or anything else on set that they may have to interact with when acting. Thats why there are professionals to set up and maintain safe working conditions.
Really, just airsoft it up and CGI everything else. Keep guns off sets entirely if that is whats best.
^the above commentary is not about Baldwin. I have no idea what actually happened, just like everyone else here. We can all read claims, but that may or may not result in the full picture.
One, I don’t know the intimate facts and two I’m not versed in NM law but that being said I’m pretty shocked he was charged. As a general rule, all crimes require criminal intent (some level of mens rea). The few crimes that don’t still require to be so negligent that a reasonable person in the same circumstances just absolutely would not have done the same thing. There is a huge difference in civil liability vs criminal liability. That being said I gotta assume there is more to the story.
Since there seems to be various levels of confusion over the charges indicated in the title of this thread. This is manslaughter of the involuntary type...
en.m.wikipedia.org
Manslaughter - Wikipedia
DA's shoot for the moon ever time hoping they will settle for a lesser conviction. Just because they charge Felony doesn't mean it is.
I simply meant it's not a civil case, as you indicated. Those are between two parties and are not brought by the state.
I'm gonna maybe walk back some of my take since reading more about this as I previously thought this was an off set "accident" that had nothing to do about rehearsing a scene. Was the lady who was killed part of the scene? The director who was also injured? Dunno. If they weren't, why did Baldwin point and fire at them? I don't believe his "I didn't pull the trigger" line. I have a .44 Bulldog S&W and have always been told to keep the top chamber empty for safety purposes in case it was struck or hit the ground and accidentally discharged but I see no way in hell a revolver can go off any other way unless the trigger is pulled or you pull back the hammer and it slips from your thumb on the way back before it's cocked. . I need more answers as to what specifically was going on at the time and where people were before I come to a difinitive opinion. Was it during a live scene where Baldwin was instructed to fire?
From what I’ve read they had been rehearsing a scene that called for him to shoot directly into the camera. They had finished rehearsal and had broke until that afternoon to film the scene. The woman and man shot were not actors. She was the cinematographer and Baldwin was discussing the scene with someone, not sure if it was her, and re-enacted the scene, ” You mean like this? “ Bang!
I should have said it should be a Civil Case. Wrong verbiage on my part. I think a mistake was made and no intent to kill. Unless Baldwin was drunk or high it was a mistake. I don't like Baldwins politics, but I don't think he should be charged for this. Obviously, we don't know all the facts. We will see.
A homicide with no intent to kill is what involuntary manslaughter is. This was a homicide, as one human killed another.
I'm simply trying to steer the discussion along factual lines.
That's reasonable for now I reckon as I've simmered my original take. It seems he did something reckless and foolish at worst unless there was bad blood between Baldwin and the victim which I've heard nothing regarding that.
Factually, it still has to include recklessness or unreasonably unsafe behavior by the person charged.
Yes, there's more to prove than just homicide with no intent.
The poster I was responding to seemed to think no intent to kill meant it shouldn't be a criminal charge. It can be if manslaughter is proven.
Yes, there need not be an intent to kill, but I think there must still be intent to act in a criminal manner, ie intent to be reckless. Like speeding or drinking and getting behind the wheel, you know you're not supposed to do that so there's intent involved. Mens rea and all that, but I'm not a lawyer and that's getting past my knowledge, especially as to any differences between how that reads literally in the law and how it's actually applied in practice.
How do you prove he knew he wasn't supposed to point that prop gun at the camera and pull the trigger.....for a scene that called for him to point that prop at the camera and fire? Hell, if he hadn't when he did, wouldn't it have still happened when they filmed the scene? I guess all you can blame him for is not test firing the weapon pointed safely at the ground....but then maybe not as maybe the first chamber would be empty and he would have advanced it to maybe a live round for the scene?
I guess that's what the trial is for. If the DA is acting in good faith, he/she apparently found enough questions to take it to trial.