Actor Alec Baldwin shoots 2 people, killing one of them.

Page 5 of 18 [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 18  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

24 Oct 2021, 5:11 am

naturalplastic wrote:
BTW...didnt you mean "PROponent". And not "opponent" of "gun laws".


Actually it was trending on Twitter back in 2018 as #NoRA
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/201 ... nora-group

It probably also explains why Kimmel and Shumer get a lot of hate on social media.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

24 Oct 2021, 8:01 am

cyberdad wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
BTW...didnt you mean "PROponent". And not "opponent" of "gun laws".


Actually it was trending on Twitter back in 2018 as #NoRA
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/201 ... nora-group

It probably also explains why Kimmel and Shumer get a lot of hate on social media.

Dude...that doesnt have a blinkin thing to do with what I asked you. I am not talking about Baldwin. Im talking about your use of vocabulary.

Folks who are FOR gun control, and who oppose the NRA, are IN FAVOR of enacting laws controlling guns.

Are they not?

Ergo... a guy who allies himself with folks who oppose the NRA , like Baldwin, would be a PROPONENT of gun laws.

Wouldnt you agree?

Not an "opponent of gun laws".

In contrast Charlton Heston and the NRA (who want gun rights) would be "opponents of gun laws".

But you have them labeled the other way around...you called Baldwin an "Opponent of gun laws" (at the same time that you describe him as being the opposite- as being FOR gun control).

Do you have trouble keeping track of your own train of thought?

Maybe this is where you get confused:

You could call Baldwin "anti gun"(and folks do) , and call Heston "pro gun"( and folks do). But it doesnt make sense to call Baldwin "anti gun LAW", or Heston "pro gun LAW".



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

24 Oct 2021, 10:25 am



TB_TB_TB_TB_TB_TB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 532
Location: Planet Emorf

24 Oct 2021, 12:33 pm

Brictoria wrote:


Good explanation



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

25 Oct 2021, 1:11 am

Proponent - a person who advocates a theory, proposal, or course of action.

So Baldwin is a proponent of gun regulation which are not yet law in the US
So my point was that he was an opponent current US gun laws as supported by the NRA



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Oct 2021, 10:35 am

An explanation of how Mr Baldwin's actions in the incident may affect his (personal\criminal) liability for what occurred as explained by a lawyer who specialises in these sorts of cases\this area of law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3PtOInT8XA
(I had to link to video this way, as he has it set to only play on youtube).



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Oct 2021, 8:01 pm

A more recent explanation as to the likely charge Mr Baldwin would face, along with the reason(s) why:

Quote:
While jury instructions are not, technically speaking, authoritative sources of law themselves (those are statutes and court decisions, or case law), jury instructions are a useful amalgamation of the statutory language and how the courts want that language applied to real people in real cases. Because they are instructions intended for a jury of laypeople, and not legal experts, they also tend to be written in plain English.

Indeed, they are often written in a “fill-in-the-blanks” kind of format to make them easy to use consistently from trial to trial, and that’s precisely how New Mexico structures its uniform jury instructions.

Here’s how jury instruction 14-231 on involuntary manslaughter would be read to the jury if the blanks were filled in with relevant facts from Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins [that content placed within brackets]:

For you to find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:

[Alec Baldwin] [pointed a loaded firearm at Ms. Hutchins and depressed the trigger, firing a bullet into her] ;
[Alec Baldwin] should have known of the danger involved by [Alec Baldwin’s] actions;
[Alec Baldwin] acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others;
[Alec Baldwin’s] act caused the death of [Ms. Hutchins];
This happened in New Mexico on or about the 21st day of October, 2021.

The “know of the danger” and “willful disregard” portions of the jury instruction correspond to the “due caution and circumspection” language of § 30-2-3. The matter of “willful” merely refers to the fact that whether to first inspect the gun to ensure it did not contain a live round was within Baldwin’s control—there was no outside force compelling him to not safety check the firearm before he pointed it at Ms. Hutchins and fired it.

So, again, it seems incontestable, based on the evidence as it appears to be, that Baldwin’s conduct meets the legal conditions for the crime of felony involuntary manslaughter.

“Hey, Andrew, Any Case Law On This?”

But wait, we’re not done yet. Having looked at the relevant New Mexico statute and jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, we ought also to consider whether there’s any New Mexico case law (appellate court decisions) that would seem to apply to this question of whether handling a loaded gun in such an unsafe manner that you unintentionally kill someone meets the legal standard for the crime of felony involuntary manslaughter.

And, as it happens, there is indeed New Mexico case law precisely on this point.

That case law is a decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court itself, State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). For any of you who may be concerned that Gilliam, a decision handed down in 1955, is “out of date,” be not afraid—case law is perfectly valid law until there is a Constitutional, statutory, or later court decision that modifies or reverses the applied legal standard. Valid case law does not simply “expire”—and I used my office’s professional legal database resource, Lexis, to ensure that Gilliam remains good law in New Mexico.

The decision was an appeal of a criminal conviction at a jury trial, in which the defendant had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter by the act of unsafely handling a gun with the result that it discharged and killed the victim.

The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:

Quote:
It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

So, it doesn’t matter who loaded the gun—meaning, all this talk about whether the live round in the gun came from this source or that source or some other source is largely irrelevant for purposes of determining whether Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins was involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law.

All that matters in the context of involuntary manslaughter through unsafe handling of a firearm is that “the defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.”

Clearly Baldwin “had in his hands a gun, which at some time had been loaded.” And as we’ve already demonstrated, by so thoroughly violating the well-established, and mandatory, rules of gun safety he also “handled it without due caution and circumspection.” And, finally, we all know for certain the tragic outcome of this conduct that Ms. Hitchens’ “death resulted.”

Again, it’s hard to see how Baldwin’s fatal shooting of Ms. Hitchens, based on the facts as we believe them to have been established, could fail to qualify as involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law.

What About Things Other People May Have Done Wrong?

I see a lot of hand-wringing attempting to assign blame for this tragedy to, it seems, everybody other than Baldwin. Frankly, the intensity of these efforts suggests to me that they are part of an orchestrated crisis management initiative put into play on Baldwin’s behalf—and that’s a smart move by Baldwin, if in fact that’s what he’s done. It’s why such crisis management firms exist.

It is, indeed, possible that other people also bear some responsibility, perhaps even criminal responsibility, for this tragedy. Perhaps safety rules were broken, professional duties were failed, or adequate resources to ensure safety were not provided.

None of that, however, at all diminishes the responsibility, under law, for Baldwin to handle that inherently dangerous instrument, the gun, with due caution and circumspection—and that he failed to do when he pointed the gun at Ms. Hitchens and pressed the trigger, without first personally ensuring that the weapon did not contain a live round.

Whatever mistakes others might have made previously, had Baldwin broken even one less of the fundamental gun safety rules—had he not pointed the gun at Ms. Hitches, or had he not pressed the trigger, or had he assumed the gun contained live ammo until he personally determined otherwise—Ms. Hitchens would not have died from that bullet on that day. Her fate ultimately rested entirely in the hands of Baldwin. And, it appears, he failed her and failed the law of New Mexico.

But He’s an Actor!

Another bit of handwringing I’m seeing a lot of is the notion that the rules should be different for Baldwin because he’s an actor, and actors often point guns at each other in various roles, it’s what they do. They’re … different.

First, the reality that actors do often point guns at each other in various roles, and that they do it almost invariably without unintentionally shooting someone, is a credit generally to Hollywood’s safety practices, and only highlights to an even greater degree why adhering to “due caution and circumspection” is so vital when handling firearms.

When the safety rules are followed, no harm results. When Baldwin willfully violates the safety rules, Ms. Hitchens dies.

The death of Ms. Hitchens is not a “Hollywood problem,” Hollywood has a pretty darned good safety record in gun handling, it’s an “Alec Baldwin problem.

From more of a legal perspective, however, there’s nothing about being an actor that entitles someone to create an unjustified risk of killing someone, disregarding that risk, and then killing that person. There’s no involuntary manslaughter “freebie” for actors. If they kill someone recklessly, they are as guilty of involuntary manslaughter as is the fellow down the street who drunkenly runs over the nun in the crosswalk. There’s no special “actor” court.

Source: https://lawofselfdefense.com/legal-analysis-alec-baldwin-situation-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/
Which is a transcript of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upDuj8EcYeg (playback of video is blocked on external sites, hence direct link rather than inserted video).

If the prosecutor decides to press charges, it doesn't look too good for Mr Baldwin - but the prosecutor isn't required to do so, and may refrain from doing so whether the evidence would support a conviction or not...



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Oct 2021, 9:55 pm

Another detail which may have contributed:

There are rumours that Covid restrictions on the set meant that people involved in the normal handling of these items were not permitted near each other. This could explain why the Assistant Director "picked up the gun" rather than had it handed to him - It is possible the armorer placed a gun on the tray for use, then was required to leave the area. Someone who had taken another gun off-site to use with live rounds may have returned and placed it on the tray, not realizing the gun already there was for use, not return to the armorer, if they were also prevented from contact with the armorer.

One such rumour suggests:

Quote:
Did COVID protocols that segregate crews into A,B & C groups put the armorer in Group B and therefore required to socially distance from close contact with the A team (e.g., principle actor/producer, director, cinamatographer, 1stAD)?


There are also suggestions that it was the prop-master's daughter who had taken the particular gun off-site for use with live rounds.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

26 Oct 2021, 1:24 am

Looks like the Hutchins family don't blame Baldwin so there'll be no legal action by the family against him specifically.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-25/ ... /100564634

All that's left is whether the police decide a crime has been committed.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

26 Oct 2021, 1:27 am

This has the possibility of introducing "reasonable doubt" as to whether the armorer had loaded the gun with live rounds:

Quote:
Aside from Baldwin, Souza said, two people were handling the gun for the scene: armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed and then assistant director Dave Halls, who handed the gun to Baldwin, the affidavit said.

Because of COVID-19 safety protocols, Gutierrez Reed set up three prop guns on a cart outside Bonanza Creek Ranch’s church set, the focus of the search warrant. Halls did not know live rounds were in the gun that he handed to Baldwin, and Halls yelled “cold gun,” according to the affidavit.

Souza told the detective that cast and crew had been preparing for the scene before lunch but then took a meal break away from the rehearsal area around 12:30 p.m. When they returned, Souza said, he wasn’t sure whether the gun was checked again. He also addressed the possibility of cast or crew members bringing onto the set live ammunition and live rounds, which can include potentially dangerous blanks.

“Joel said as far as he knows, no one gets checked for live ammunition on their person prior and after the scenes are being filmed,” the affidavit said. “The only thing checked are the firearms to avoid live ammunition being in them. Joel stated there should never be live rounds whatsoever, near or around the scene.”

Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-24/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-shooting-halyna-hutchins-search-warrant

With no chain of custody from the armorer (due to COVID protocols), they have the ability to claim someone tampered with it between when placed on the cart and when the assistant director took possesion of it (depending on the duration of that time and whether both had visibility of it for the duration of that time)...And it appears the Assistant Director may not have done anything to confirm (asking armorer, checking for themselves) that it did not hold live rounds.

Of course, if it was prepared prior to lunch and left on tray, not being rechecked after lunch, then that suggests other negligence issues at the location\by the armorer...



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

26 Oct 2021, 3:52 am

Prop guns should be as dangerous as prop lightsabers.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,510
Location: Over there

26 Oct 2021, 11:09 am

To the surprise of no-one, Beavis Trump Jr. manages to go even lower. It's a wonder he can still breathe down there.

Image

https://shopdonjr.com/collections/appar ... -apparel-1


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,510
Location: Over there

26 Oct 2021, 11:20 am

Brictoria wrote:
Off Topic
To help out the site admin, who has recently decided to highlight the potential bias of the sources used
This is misleading hyperbole - I've already explained how I used that site, with other information, as a WP member to show the utter worthlessness of the Daily Mail as a source. One site, not a series. As me, not an administrator.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


maycontainthunder
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Mar 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,875

26 Oct 2021, 11:27 am

Cornflake wrote:
the utter worthlessness of the Daily Mail as a source.


More commonly it is known as the Daily Fail. You're right they are worthless.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

26 Oct 2021, 12:52 pm

People had allegedly been using that gun for target practice earlier.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/ ... =emaildkre


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Oct 2021, 5:05 pm

Cornflake wrote:
To the surprise of no-one, Beavis Trump Jr. manages to go even lower. It's a wonder he can still breathe down there.

Image

https://shopdonjr.com/collections/appar ... -apparel-1


Goes to show you what a low life Don Jr. is. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer