Alec Baldwin’s Negligent Discharge – Actor May Face Involuntary Manslaughter Charges: “This was not a misfire”

[KosherLampshade]

I've thought about this quite often. With the budget behind these films you could easily hire a machinist to manufacture a picture-perfect replica of any firearm that can't accept live rounds and another expert to create turbocharged blanks that fit it. It's unfathomable to me that something like this can happen on set.

You're talking about designing and manufacturing entirely new guns. It really wouldn't be that easy or cheap to do, even for a hollywood production. Plus it would take a very long time. Normally, if you want to shoot blanks, you need a special blank adapter that attaches to the muzzle.




This is because a blank round does not provide enough energy to cycle the bolt on most autoloaders. From what I understand, with semi autos & autos Hollywood gunsmiths specialize in modifying them to shoot blanks without changing their appearance.

But since the gun in this case was a revolver, you don't need to do any modifications, so it seems like they were using a 100% real and functional revolver. This SHOULD be fine if they had a competent (male) armorer who followed all the safety rules. But apparently this fat chick was using the gun for live fire "target practice" off set and had stored the blanks with the live ammo.

It really just comes down to a case of womens' retardation. Did you see the tik toks she was making?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452178812058226688

Would you trust this thing to tell you if a gun was loaded or not? I wouldn't even trust her to do my laundry.

 

[Sputnik]

This simply is not true in two ways. Any training or lack of training has nothing to do with whether or not you committed a criminal act, will catch a criminal charge and possibly be convicted in court. That is like saying nigger who has never handled a gun before, picks up a loaded glock he finds on the street, kills ten people with it and now whether or not he had training in the correct handling of firearms will somehow make some kind of difference as to his being charged, convicted or criminally liable.
Your second point regarding "malicious intent" is also incorrect as the charge he will likely face is "involuntary manslaughter" and I suggest you look up that term and what it actually means as it is absent any "intent". That is why it is called "involuntary". And it will also be taken into consideration as to why was Baldwin pointed the gun in the direction of the director, pulled the trigger, and shot her dead center in her belly. Surely the prosecution will want an explanation for that regarding that significant detail as well because those details may not show malicious intent, but clearly some other type of "reckless endangerment" type of charge. Especially when there was no professional reason related to his film character to be pointing the gun in the direction of the director, pulling the trigger and hitting her center mass.
When it comes to accidental firearms death and involuntary killings...the buck stops with the one who had the firearm in his hands and pullled the trigger no matter the intent.
The charge of involuntary manslaughter covers death by "accidents" and "carelessness". And the fact that he must have raised the muzzle, pointed the barrel in the direction of the director, pulled the trigger and hit the person with a fatal wound will surely convict him on that charge even if he had no intent to actually shoot her, injure her or kill her.
If I am cleaning my gun, which I truly believe to be unloaded, and the gun fires off and kills my wife or kid then I surely lacked intent but I will be catching an involuntary manslaughter charge for sure.

Surely liability will be spread around to all of those who had a role of responsibility in this scenario. But Baldwin's criminal liability is unique to the others because Baldwin pulled the trigger and Baldwin killed the director. The assistant director and licensed armorer will likely catch a criminal charge or several, but not manslaughter. They may get a reckless endangerment charge. They will get criminal charges related to contributing to the scenario that led up to a manslaughter. And surely they will suffer civil liabilities as well as will Baldwin. Baldwins civil liabilities will be far greater because it is Baldwin that pulled the trigger and took a life and any criminal conviction for involuntary manslaughter will more than cement a civil court decision in favor of the suing party.

Does the US have the reasonable man requirement? In SA he would definitely not face any charges if what we read about this at face value is true. IE He was required to do the scene. He was partaking in an activity that was reasonable and common within the context of a movie set. He had no part nor was expected to have any part in ensuring that the weapon was safe to use in the scene. He had no training nor was expected to have training in the safe use of a firearm because specialists are hired to control every aspect of this. He had no reason to suspect that any live ammunition was present.
Clearly the scene involved a certain amount of elemental practice as is the case leading up to every scene. The director (assistant) was there because he the cinematographer and Baldwin were practicing elements and camera angles for the particular scene. The armourer handed him the weapon declaring it "cold" and ready to use.
This indicates that this was a collaborated effort and was not the result of Baldwin ambling over to the table where the firearms were resting picking one up pointing it at the AD randomly and firing. (It was actually pointed in the direction of the cinematographer who was killed and not the director, the director was behind her obviously giving input from his perspective. and he was wounded by the same bullet.)

Therefore it is not the same as the nigger that picks up a firearm and shooting someone with it and I disagree that he had any liability in this action all things above being equal. I doubt he will face any charges based on this. Did the shooter of Brandon Lee face charges?

The "Reasonable Person" requirement would look at all of the above AND the context and make a decision whether to charge or not to charge and under the circumstances considering the context in that particular situation he would pass the "Reasonable Person" requirement.
I have these same types of debates time and time again with gun people over here and it always comes down to "show me a person in the same context and situation that was charged". I have yet to be proved wrong.

 

[MichaelWittmann]

Well written post. I've noticed that the worst offenders to gun safety are shitlib antigunners who buy a gun and then act like idiots when holding the actual firearm. I wonder if their habitual denial of reality and belief that movies like "Schindler's List" are somehow real makes them incapable of understanding on a fundamental level the idea of cause and effect in the real world.

 

[Quest 4 The Future]

Does the US have the reasonable man requirement? In SA he would definitely not face any charges if what we read about this at face value is true. IE He was required to do the scene. He was partaking in an activity that was reasonable and common within the context of a movie set. He had no part nor was expected to have any part in ensuring that the weapon was safe to use in the scene.

Maybe. But Alec Baldwin was not just an actor on the set. He was also the movie's co-producer, along with this person:

ANJUL NIGAM

​

And here's what a film site has to say about the responsibilities of a movie producer are:

Professional film crews take health and safety issues very seriously. The line of responsibility runs from the Producer to the Production Manager and 1st Assistant Director and finally on to all crew members who have a duty of care which is recognised by law.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then both Alec Baldwin and Anjul NIGam were ultimately responsible for set safety. Now imagine you're a prosecuting attorney for a moment:

Prosecuting Attorney: "As co-producer of the movie "Rust", Mr. Baldwin, it was your duty to ensure the safety of everyone on the set. Now, I ask you: is allowing the activity of shooting guns loaded with live ammunition at the "Rust" film site in New Mexico in line with keeping your employees safe? Furthermore, was it not your duty to ensure that your cinematographer Halyna Hutchins worked under safe, non-life-threatening conditions at all times? And yet, you permitted live ammunition not only on the New Mexico film site you allowed such live ammunition to be fired on the film site. What's more, the very gun that you use in the actual making of the movie served also for what amounted to "recreational target practice". Is that not correct, Mr. Baldwin? I asked you - is that not correct!!!"

So Alec Baldwin, even though he had nothing to do with maintaining the lethal firearm in question, may still be facing serious criminal charges.

 

[inquisitor]

Does the US have the reasonable man requirement? In SA he would definitely not face any charges if what we read about this at face value is true. IE He was required to do the scene. He was partaking in an activity that was reasonable and common within the context of a movie set. He had no part nor was expected to have any part in ensuring that the weapon was safe to use in the scene. He had no training nor was expected to have training in the safe use of a firearm because specialists are hired to control every aspect of this. He had no reason to suspect that any live ammunition was present.
Clearly the scene involved a certain amount of elemental practice as is the case leading up to every scene. The director (assistant) was there because he the cinematographer and Baldwin were practicing elements and camera angles for the particular scene. The armourer handed him the weapon declaring it "cold" and ready to use.
This indicates that this was a collaborated effort and was not the result of Baldwin ambling over to the table where the firearms were resting picking one up pointing it at the AD randomly and firing. (It was actually pointed in the direction of the cinematographer who was killed and not the director, the director was behind her obviously giving input from his perspective. and he was wounded by the same bullet.)

Therefore it is not the same as the nigger that picks up a firearm and shooting someone with it and I disagree that he had any liability in this action all things above being equal. I doubt he will face any charges based on this. Did the shooter of Brandon Lee face charges?

The "Reasonable Person" requirement would look at all of the above AND the context and make a decision whether to charge or not to charge and under the circumstances considering the context in that particular situation he would pass the "Reasonable Person" requirement.
I have these same types of debates time and time again with gun people over here and it always comes down to "show me a person in the same context and situation that was charged". I have yet to be proved wrong.

Well, it will be up to the district attorney to decide if no criminal charges will be filed.
The glaring difference between Brandon Lee and this shooting is that Brandon Lee consented to be on the other end of the fired weapon as part of his role and have it pointed at his body as part of making the movie, but the movie director that Baldwin shot and killed should never have had a gun pointed in her direction much less hitting her square in the belly. And it is that detail that may make a difference as to how a district attorney may decide.

 

[Quest 4 The Future]

 

[anti-barabas-ite]

Seems they used these "prop" guns to target practice with live ammo .

Mixed live ammo with "blanks "

Armourer is going down as is insurance company.
Baldwin will skate and redouble his anti gun faggotry.

 

[GoodOlboY]

For whatever reason this boomer quibbling over gun terminology really gets on my nerves lately. Maybe instead of playing internet range officer you should do a similar write up on how homosexuals aren't real, or something.

Speaking of smug (which Alec always carried this look about him that he wants everyone he does not like dead) nothing is more smug than Norm talking about firearms. I remember asking simple questions or even browsing the selection and the Norms that worked there would be irritated.

It's so prevalent my buddies and I started calling them Gun Snobs. Every single gun store has some douche with a wallet chain, wrangler slip-ons, and a 20 year old truck treating everyone like they are the dumbest people on Earth.

 

[sandhedspile]

Speaking of smug (which Alec always carried this look about him that he wants everyone he does not like dead) nothing is more smug than Norm talking about firearms. I remember asking simple questions or even browsing the selection and the Norms that worked there would be irritated.

It's so prevalent my buddies and I started calling them Gun Snobs. Every single gun store has some douche with a wallet chain, wrangler slip-ons, and a 20 year old truck treating everyone like they are the dumbest people on Earth.

I think Don, Jr addressed that, when the media asked about his "mean t-shirt"...like, Balswin, if the roles were reversed, would be a total asshile. So fuck him.

 

[Sputnik]

Well, it will be up to the district attorney to decide if no criminal charges will be filed.
The glaring difference between Brandon Lee and this shooting is that Brandon Lee consented to be on the other end of the fired weapon as part of his role and have it pointed at his body as part of making the movie, but the movie director that Baldwin shot and killed should never have had a gun pointed in her direction much less hitting her square in the belly. And it is that detail that may make a difference as to how a district attorney may decide.

Firstly you have your facts wrong. The person shot was female and not the movie director SHE was the cinematographer (camera woman) The assistant director (who was wounded) was behind her and it was HIM that handed the revolver to Baldwin. So what can we deduct from this:
Baldwin, the camera woman and the assistant director were busy practicing camera angles for a particular scene when this happened. To call this a common event on a movie set would be a rather gross understatement.

So your version is fictitious and wishful. I already wrote this before but you did not read it just as you clearly did not read the actual story of what happened because you still appear to be ignorant of who the Assistant Director was (the male who was not killed), and who the cinematographer was (the camera woman who was killed). You appear to be fixated on thehope that Baldwin was fucking around with the gun when he shouldn't have been, when the three of them were actually engaging in determining camera angles. This is why the AD was standing directly behind the camera woman, to get the same view as the camera.

It really is a case of the devil being in the details.

 

[Vilis_Hāzners]

 

[Sputnik]

Well written post. I've noticed that the worst offenders to gun safety are shitlib antigunners who buy a gun and then act like idiots when holding the actual firearm. I wonder if their habitual denial of reality and belief that movies like "Schindler's List" are somehow real makes them incapable of understanding on a fundamental level the idea of cause and effect in the real world.

Its because liberals are generally retards in the literal sense who should not be anywhere near a firearm or a vehicle or an office of authority.

 

[inquisitor]

You write...

Firstly you have your facts wrong. The person shot was female...

I wrote...

but the movie director that Baldwin shot and killed should never have had a gun pointed in her direction

So it would appear you are attempting to set me straight and correct me on a detail that I actually had right.

You write...

and not the movie director SHE was the cinematographer (camera woman) The assistant director (who was wounded) was behind her and it was HIM that handed the revolver to Baldwin. So what can we deduct from this:

Not really relevant to the analysis and the article I read had stated it how I wrote it. Surely, immediately after an incident certain sources may state it incorrectly. Another source declared the wounded person had actually died and their were two deaths, so I actually had to chase that claim down and find out it was not accurate.
But the job titles of those injured have nothing to do with whether or not Baldwin will catch a criminal charge or be civilly liable for the death.

So your version is fictitious and wishful. I already wrote this before but you did not read it just as you clearly did not read the actual story of what happened because you still appear to be ignorant of who the Assistant Director was (the male who was not killed), and who the cinematographer was (the camera woman who was killed). You appear to be fixated on thehope that Baldwin was fucking around with the gun when he shouldn't have been, when the three of them were actually engaging in determining camera angles. This is why the AD was standing directly behind the camera woman, to get the same view as the camera.

Again, I consulted a source article that stated it the way I wrote it and other articles I gleaned over were also getting some of the facts incorrect. I didn't just dream up the details out of my imagination. So it isn't "my version". But now we will see how this plays out. Again, here are the considerations. Will Baldwin catch a criminal charge from a prosecutor? Will Baldwin go to court to defend against a charge? And if so, will he be found guilty? And if found guilty what will be the punishment? According to you, none of this is going to happen and is irrelevant. Then fine, we know where you stand. No one was confused about where you stand and why you take that stance. Secondly, Baldwin may be sued by the family of the deceased civilly and should that even occur, for which I do not even know if it will, then we will see if he is found guilty and has to pay any restitution for being the trigger man. According to you, I presume you believe this too will also not occur. There really is nothing left for me to discuss or debate about it at this as time will tell as events unfold. Certainly, because it is Baldwin, it will remain in the news cycle and people will be paying attention. It is quite possible no liability at all will fall upon the actor and others pn set and the corporations involved will get the brunt and I certainly would not argue against this possibility either. I have already stated that the license armorer is certainly liable as is the person who declared the gun was "cold" and unloaded to the entire set.

 

[inquisitor]

Some legal considerations on the state level...

Imagine what the news cycle would be like if this was James Woods.

 

[Quest 4 The Future]

 

[inquisitor]

 

[Quest 4 The Future]

 

[inquisitor]

 

[inquisitor]

This is not looking so good.

 

[Habakkuk]

A talented cinematographer is dead

 

[inquisitor]

The details of this are suggesting the civil case will be a slam dunk and for a huge amount.
It would seem such a lack of care was exercised and recklessness present that it is even possible any liability insurance company that was used for this production may hire their own lawyer to absolve themselves of covering any losses.

 

[inquisitor]

An overview of the sheriff's affidavit...

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Yeah, it's negligent homicide at the very least. One is guilty of negligent homicide when one is doing something they are legally entitled to do but they do it negligently resulting in death. There is no way Baldwin didn't know this was a real gun, there is no way he didn't know that there is a possibility of harm or death from anything that even looks like a real gun. He has been through the whole gun safety thing hundreds of times before on other sets, he has been in dozens of films with scenes involving firearms. There is no excuse.

He's lazy, he's stupid and he hates guns so it was just too much trouble for him to check it himself.

 

[Quest 4 The Future]

This 16 minute video by Lauren Southern gives the best breakdown of all the facets involved in the Alec Baldwin film set shooting. She goes over every detail. At the end of it all the five people whose asses are gonna fry in court are:

• Armorer - Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
• Key Grip - (name unknown)
• Assistant Director - Dave Halls
• Actor - Alec Baldwin - aka "Harland Rust", Ace Gunfighter
• Producer - Alec Baldwin - co-producer of the film company making the movie "Rust"

 

[Quest 4 The Future]