Alec Baldwin and prop lady to be charged with 2 counts of involuntary manslaughter.
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
Alec Baldwin faces jail as Rust cast and crew charged over Halyna Hutchins death
Verdict on whether Alec Baldwin will be charged in Rust movie shooting incident is due to be delivered on Thursday, 19 January
www.independent.co.uk
Jury will have to decide how the definition of voluntery manslaughter. Probably will get off with a misdemeanor plea.
Obviously this was an accident but I am not going to pretend to understand the legal requirements in play.
this
I cannot see how a jury would give him jailtime without knowingly shooting a hot gun. of course, unless there is evidence to disprove that of course.
That would be a heck of a movie plot.
Conspiracy to kill somebody so openly to make it “have to be an accident” to investigators.
I suppose it depends on his level of responsibility for making sure it wasn’t a hot gun before pointing it at someone.
Somebody was criminally negligent.
There are protocols to handling weapons on a movie set, if he broke those he should do jail time. You don't get off for ignorance.
Honestly, I don't really celebrate people getting charged with crimes involving the death of someone, but at least involuntary manslaughter is probably the "right" level of charge and the prosecutor didn't try to get too far out over their skis.
Yeah, I think this will come down to what the protocols were to ensure the gun wasn’t hot and who broke the protocol. I don’t know the answer to those questions, but that’s what the trial will be for.
That is not how the law works. It's a movie set for a western. The gun was repeatedly said to be a cold gun. The gun was fired or not by him but it was believed to be not live rounds. How is he responsible?
At the end of the day, the jury will be instructed that he can be convicted if a death resulted from his serious negligence or recklessness, which could arise from his handling (as actor) or financing/staffing (as producer) relating to the weapon.
Of course, juror nullification can always occur, such that he walks for the simple reason that some juror thinks he's just a swell guy, or for no reason.
Of course, juror nullification can always occur, such that he walks for the simple reason that some juror thinks he's just a swell guy, or for no reason.
It's certainly possible he had a level of negligence in it. I'd have to see the evidence as to what their processes were, who had oversight on the film for those, etc... I mean as an actor you should always assume a gun is loaded, but there's someone who's job it is to make certain it's not. I can't think of any situation where a loaded weapon has accidentally shown up on a set. No one would expect that.
To me the person most responsible is whoever was responsible for attaining the ammo, verifying it as blanks, and providing it to the set. That's the person who needs to be in jail.
Unless of course we find out they knowingly had live ammo and knew that the gun was being used for both...
So evidence.
To me the person most responsible is whoever was responsible for attaining the ammo, verifying it as blanks, and providing it to the set. That's the person who needs to be in jail.
Unless of course we find out they knowingly had live ammo and knew that the gun was being used for both...
So evidence.
The armorer has also been charged. Makes you wonder whether they will seek separate trials. I assume so.
I doubt the charge relates to the latter, but I suppose it’s possible.
On the former, as I asked above - if he pulled the trigger during live filming would he be charged? Are all actors now responsible for confirming the work of the on-set armorers, and criminally liable for any mistakes?
I can’t see how he’s ever found guilty.
If I was a defense attorney here this would be the best way to get my client from avoiding jail.
You should email that question to the DA who felt there was enough evidence to charge him with manslaughter, since you said the law doesn't work that way.
Lol at Joe Hollywood over here. I'm sure you know all the protocols.
I hear you, though I seem to recall some rumblings early on in this (which may not have been true) about cutting corners on staffing or some union shop dustup, which at the least could get the latter issue to the jury.
Ultimately, if i had to place a bet right now, I'd bet you're right regarding him being found not guilty (or mistrial for hung jury)
I’m also curious if he’s essentially being charged as the actor that pulled the trigger or as the producer who almost certainly has some oversight related to safety procedures. Depending on the specific protocols in play, I could actually see him potentially more culpable from the oversight side than from the actor side.
yeah, the only way he's guilty is if, as the Director/producer role he held, he was responsible for putting in processes for making certain the set was safe and he was negligent in the protocols enacted for this by either not having them or knowingly allowing them to not be followed. IF he knew processes were either not in place or not followed and still handled the weapon, then I'd vote guilty. But if he either was not the one responsible for that level of safety OR he put them in place but someone simply did not follow them, then I don't see any way that he's guilty. It's going to be a pretty big hurdle.
DA is probably some butt hurt trump fan over ABs perfect impersonation of the maga god.
I think the armorer was the daughter of a legit armorer but sounded like she was woefully unqualified/inexperienced. But that seems more like a civil matter to me, which they already settled. I just don’t see how you film with any sort of firearms or explosives if actors can be criminally charged for mistakes made by others.
If Baldwin loaded the gun himself outside of the supervision of the armorer and was playing around, or even practicing, I can see the charges, but I’ve always heard it was handed to him and he was told it was a cold gun.
I guess we’ll see.
I think Baldwin was charged more because he was the producer than the shooter.
If he was the shooter and thought the bullets were live, that would be murder.
If he had no reason to believe they were live, he certainly doesn't have the state of mind to be charged with anything.
However, if he was charged as the producer - and was indifferent to perhaps issues with the armorer who was charged - I could see an involuntary manslaughter charge.
But I have no idea really, just spitballing and trying to read the tea leaves.
If he was the shooter and thought the bullets were live, that would be murder.
If he had no reason to believe they were live, he certainly doesn't have the state of mind to be charged with anything.
However, if he was charged as the producer - and was indifferent to perhaps issues with the armorer who was charged - I could see an involuntary manslaughter charge.
But I have no idea really, just spitballing and trying to read the tea leaves.
I hope he’s found not guilty as I think this is something that could happen to anyone. Sure there was some negligence but the blame is spread out at multiple levels. They just happened to be the end users. I actually believe he’s least to blame of all those involved.
Yes, BTW, I think you just stumbled on to the title for the to-be-made-for-tv-movie: The Armorer's Daughter.
Same here. I think it starts with the armorer. And then follow the process from there to its end point.
Almost every criminal charge requires some level of intent or criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is similar to gross negligence, and not just simple negligence. There are very few strict liability crimes, with statutory rape being the most well-known example.
I understand your general sentiment (as a person who's a huge believer in mercy), but that is precisely the reason that the lesser charge (and reduced penalties) of involuntary manslaughter exists. A person has died, perhaps as a result of serious (not just ordinary) negligence, and society should demand some responsibility for that rather than it being a simple civil matter between private parties.
Exactly, and I have not once said he should go to jail if he did nothing wrong. I simply said if it proves he was negligent with his handling of the weapon, he should. I dont think any person here knows the evidence the state has against him, yet everyone is saying he shouldn't go to jail. What evidence do you have that says he is not guilty? What if the weapons expert and armory manager told him that particular weapon was hot? Do you know for sure that didn't happen?
I've actually worked on many Hollywood movie sets, but I won't pretend to know all the weapons protocols in place. You do know they have those, right? Doesn't take joe Hollywood to know that you stupid fvck.
