Alec Baldwin Movie Set Accident

[BigSteve57]

In most US law (not sure about Louisiana), the DAs and judges apply "the reasonable person" rule.

Would a reasonable person have been able to understand that what he was doing was wrong and potentially dangerous? If "the reasonable man" would have reached that conclusion (according to DA, judge, and ultimately jury), then it is a case of negligence or recklessness.

Agreed. I'll speculate that a reasonable person would think/conclude it was safe given a so-called armorer being in charge.

I'm speculating Baldwin won't be charged. The producer, who has to ensure a safe workplace and the armorer might be.

Dunno. Ball's in play.

 

[Bullthrower338]

 

[Tundra Tiger]

"Seriously how stupid do they think we are that the gun like that would discharge on its own."

Bob... how stupid we are or they believe us to be doesn't matter. They're counting on how stupid the average person with minimal actual knowledge of firearms is.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Agreed. I'll speculate that a reasonable person would think/conclude it was safe given a so-called armorer being in charge.

I'm speculating Baldwin won't be charged. The producer, who has to ensure a safe workplace and the armorer might be.

Dunno. Ball's in play.

I agree. I think a prosecutor could successfully argue that a reasonable person who knew there was live ammunition on the set and that the firearm in his possession had been used to fire some of that live ammo very recently would be held liable UNLESS the armorer handed him the pistol and said it was good to go. If the armorer ok’d it then I don’t really see him being held responsible just like you said

 

[sgt_zim]

Agreed. I'll speculate that a reasonable person would think/conclude it was safe given a so-called armorer being in charge.

I'm speculating Baldwin won't be charged. The producer, who has to ensure a safe workplace and the armorer might be.

Dunno. Ball's in play.

If the DA really wants to prosecute this case, which is unknown at this point, the reasonable person test may not apply to the "average" person in this circumstance.

IMO, it is (literally) child-like to take it on faith that a revolver somebody just handed you is "cold." If it can be said to be child-like, it isn't reasonable because Baldwin isn't a child, thus he should have known (because a reasonable, non-child person would know). I've seen cases in Houston argued along those lines, though not in a case just like this one.

 

[sgt_zim]

and honestly, all it will take is 1 single "gun guy" on a jury. the other 11, if they aren't aware, will likely be easily convinced.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

If the DA really wants to prosecute this case, which is unknown at this point, the reasonable person test may not apply to the "average" person in this circumstance.

IMO, it is (literally) child-like to take it on faith that a revolver somebody just handed you is "cold." If it can be said to be child-like, it isn't reasonable because Baldwin isn't a child, thus he should have known (because a reasonable, non-child person would know). I've seen cases in Houston argued along those lines, though not in a case just like this one.

Only difference is in this case there is a paid “professional” there to oversee safety

 

[CJW]

If the armorer ok’d it then I don’t really see him being held responsible just like you said

But if the rules are that there is to be no live ammunition on set at anytime the case could be made that all involved were negligent and it was an accident waiting to happen. An intelligent person would have said F that and walked off set. Sounds like some of them did.

 

[shootist~]

Only difference is in this case there is a paid “professional” there to oversee safety

Except the "professional" did not hand Baldwin the gun. She was required to be outside due to Covid restrictions. The Assistant Director handed him the gun and declared "Cold Gun" without checking it himself - Per the newspaper article I linked above.

The assistant director might be setting himself up to be the fall guy. Also, the gun was not rechecked by the Armorer after being stored in a safe during their lunch break.

Yes - a reasonable adult person with minimal firearms knowledge would still know to check the gun himself if planning to draw and point it at the camera operator.

Edit to add: Live ammo was indeed found on the set if I remember the news account correctly. Unbelievably stupid stuff was going on.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Except the "professional" did not hand Baldwin the gun. She was required to be outside due to Covid restrictions. The Assistant Director handed him the gun and declared "Cold Gun" without checking it himself - Per the newspaper article I linked above.

The assistant director might be setting himself up to be the fall guy. Also, the gun was not rechecked by the Armorer after being stored in a safe during their lunch break.

Yes - a reasonable adult person with minimal firearms knowledge would still know to check the gun himself if planning to draw and point it at the camera operator.

Edit to add: Live ammo was indeed found on the set if I remember the news account correctly. Unbelievably stupid stuff was going on.

Given that info I believe all three should share responsibility to varying degrees

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

But if the rules are that there is to be no live ammunition on set at anytime the case could be made that all involved were negligent and it was an accident waiting to happen. An intelligent person would have said F that and walked off set. Sounds like some of them did.

I agree. Was the rule about the live ammo a company policy or something like that or is it a law? I think that could possibly complicate matters in court

 

[CJW]

I agree. Was the rule about the live ammo a company policy or something like that or is it a law? I think that could possibly complicate matters in court

Either way, they are put there for a reason and a prosecutor can say that it is willful negligence to ignore them.

Of course all of this is just speculation until we know exactly what happened on set and what the rules actually were. It shouldn't take long.

 

[mark-hunter]

It looks like there is no standardized rules on gun safety in movie industry.

Alec Baldwin film tragedy: What are the rules for guns on movie sets?

The regulations are under scrutiny after the death of a film-maker on the set of an Alec Baldwin film.

www.bbc.com

Warner Brothers safety rules:

Firearms – Safety on the Set

Actors equity safety rules:

Theatrical Firearms · Actors' Equity Association

 

[BigSteve57]

If the DA really wants to prosecute this case, which is unknown at this point, the reasonable person test may not apply to the "average" person in this circumstance.

IMO, it is (literally) child-like to take it on faith that a revolver somebody just handed you is "cold." If it can be said to be child-like, it isn't reasonable because Baldwin isn't a child, thus he should have known (because a reasonable, non-child person would know). I've seen cases in Houston argued along those lines, though not in a case just like this one.

I somehow missed it earlier but I found another article by the same attorney I mentioned earlier. In the below referenced article he presents some interesting hypothetical scenarios where this would be considered an accident, negligence or recklessness. In any event the state will have to prove criminal negligence in order for a charge of involuntary manslaughter to stick. Look up the definition of criminal negligence* (I haven't yet found a def specific to New Mexico).

BUT:

One thing I didn't know was that Baldwin was also a co-producer putting him higher up in the food chain for civil and criminal liability according to the referenced article.

So according to the article below that might actually make an easier case for criminal negligence!

REF:
Legal Analysis: Does Alec Baldwin Have Criminal Exposure After Shooting Woman Dead In Apparent Mistake?

*"Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is negligence that is aggravated, culpable or gross."

REF criminal negligence- general def:
Criminal Negligence Law and Legal Definition

 

[sgt_zim]

the texas version

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Best I could do for New Mexico:
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

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 might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

It would seem that NM doesn't have a "criminally negligent" definition, or if they do, I cannot find it. If Baldwin is to be charged, it appears that it will be involuntary manslaughter, since the very last clause ("or without due caution and circumspection") is as close as they come to defining criminal negligence.

 

[BigSteve57]

the texas version

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Best I could do for New Mexico:
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

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 might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

It would seem that NM doesn't have a "criminally negligent" definition, or if they do, I cannot find it. If Baldwin is to be charged, it appears that it will be involuntary manslaughter, since the very last clause ("or without due caution and circumspection") is as close as they come to defining criminal negligence.

I saw the same statute. In my earlier post I referenced an article that contained what the instructions to juries would be. The instructions to a jury in New Mexico would be that to convict of involuntary manslaughter criminal negligence would have to be alleged by the state and the jury would have to buy in to it. It is not at all clear to me that Mr Baldwin, if charged with involuntary manslaughter, would be convicted.

 

[R.M.C.]

I might be judging a book by its cover but that "armorer" probably couldn't tell the difference between a wad cutter and a blank capped round. Unfortunately this will probably be the only place Baldwin gets judged harshly .

 

[NE 7x57]

If you're handed a firearm it's your responsibility to verify it's status regardless of who told you what about that weapon. If you don't understand that then you have absolutely no business handling a firearm.

 

[JimP]

My opinion is that Baldwin will get off, since it is the armorer's responsibility to take care of the firearms on the set. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are safe and nothing is going to happen. If it is on a table for someone to hand it to someone else it is suppose to be safe, end of discussion.

Most of these actors would have no idea of how to clear a weapon if their life depended on it and it is quite likely that they are so used to having someone take care of them all day that they might not even think of what needs to be done. After all they are just acting.

I'd like to see Baldwin get some time out of this one but it is highly unlikely that it will happen.

 

[TroyF]

I'd be very interested who's fingerprints are on the live rounds in the gun, or were in the gun.