I guess I’m not. It makes sense. But I will confidently say here that he’ll either be acquitted or allowed to plead to a lesser charge.
I’m thinking the same thing. Proving criminal responsibility is going to be tough.
Fair enough - involuntary manslaughter is basically “you didn’t intend to do it, but you responsible for the death of another human being” which seems to fit the circumstance.
I would respectfully disagree that this sort of logic applies. In the armed forces, soldiers routinely handle live weapons that they know could be loaded with ammunition; they most likely load the weapons themselves. In that scenario, everyone is fully aware of this and takes proper precautions.
In the situation at hand, you have a civilian actor on a film set. Guns that are used on a film set are intended to go through a chain of custody before they reach the performer that ensures that they are safe and are specifically not going to cause harm. Alec Baldwin is likely not an expert in firearms; it is not outside the realm of imagination that he took possession of the gun believing that it had been staged in a way that it would not be a harm to himself or anyone else on that set.
At least, this is the likely argument that Baldwin’s lawyers will make if/when this goes to trial.
With the added element of criminal negligence which will be the only element argued in a probable cause hearing or trial.
I also agree with everyone else that Baldwin may plead to some lesser charge of negligence. I guess that will depend on whatever advice from legal counsel he receives.
Yes, but I think a jury would be very reluctant to convict.
I would think that criminal negligence would require some very convincing evidence that Baldwin knew the gun was unsafe but pressed forward with shooting the scene anyway. I don’t recall hearing any stories from the set stating this; if that was the case, you would think it would have leaked by now, over a year after the incident occurred.
When it comes to negligence, it is not the state of actual belief that matters, but the reasonableness of the belief and, here specifically, whether the actions taken in light of that belief were likewise reasonable.
That would, I believe, go beyond negligence to recklessness, or even—if New Mexico recognizes such a thing—depraved indifference.
“New Mexico prosecutors will charge Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with two federal counts of involuntary manslaughter over the death of Hutchins on the “Rust” film set in October 2021”
So a state attorney is charging Baldwin with violating federal statutes???
I expect Baldwin was offered the same plea deal Hall was–but turned it down.
Has to be a mistake by the reporter.
Or editor. Most of us here don’t have a very high opinion of the New York Post.
That goes contrary to the mantra of « Always treat a gun as if it’s loaded. ». That’s a basic safety rule that applies.
If you are carrying any random gun around, that is a perfectly fine rule to use. Everyone on the set of this film knew the gun was going to be pointed and fired at some point for the scene that was being filmed. They were under the belief that the gun was staged in such a way that it would not actually fire a projectile.
What I was trained…
- Every gun is always loaded.
- Never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to kill or destroy.
- Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are pulling the trigger.
- Be aware of everything near (and especially behind) whatever you’re shooting at.
I own my own pistol (a real one) and made sure that I received formal training so I knew how to be safe. I don’t think I could possibly follow the safety rules I was taught and be able to film with a real gun. You’d have to violate the rules in order to get scenes done.
I assume that’s why film sets have additional/alternative rules, and many other safety checks you wouldn’t have if you were using a normal gun outside of a film set. The regular rules don’t work there.
And this entire episode demonstrates what can happen when a person holding a gun relied on someone else saying « It’s not loaded. »
I don’t think there’s a « Hollywood actor » exemption to the rule that you don’t handle a gun unless you’ve been trained in gun safety.
ETA replying to Swissman, not Atasama.
I guess. I don’t know the details, but was the mistake Baldwin’s? People do pull triggers while facing other actors in movies.
As a producer and so forth, he may have some additional responsibility for on set situations. The director is not charged? Just him and the armorer?
Hasn’t this already been finely ground out in this thread?
But it keeps coming up. SwissMan just posted that Alec Baldwin is likely not an expert in firearms, as if that should reduce his liability.
If he doesn’t have training in firearms, he shouldn’t be handling a gun.
That’s what I’m wondering. The standard contracts would describe who’s responsible for what. I’d think the director and/or assistant director would be charged as well, since they’re ultimately responsible for the set.