Alec Baldwin involved with shooting.

[tvc184]

Ok, for the sake of arguments (although we aint married so we're just conversating).....right?.

Bartender sells a guy at the bar two many double vodkas and dude leaves the bar and kills someone in an accident. Should the bartender be charged? I mean he/she is performing a task right? The drunk knows he should have checked himself after 2 drinks.


bad analogies aside, I'll testify in a murder case in 2 weeks. One guy has already pled to life in prison for that murder. That guy wasnt the shooter. The shooter is now on trial and was offered 60 years by the state. He wanted 55 but the state refused. 60 or trial.

Why did the guy plea to life for a murder where he didnt shoot anyone? Because he was there and a willing party to the crime. That still meets the criteria of murder by the way the law is wrote

in your fresh scenario, the drunk asked for alcohol and knew it was alcohol. Did Baldwin know this was a real firearm and not a prop, which is not a firearm?

you compounded, with your second real life scenario. He pleaded guilty because he was a “willing party” so he had knowledge. Did Baldwin have that knowledge or again, did he think he was being handed a fake gun?

[tvc184]

I dont think they will either. Just because I dislike a man's political stance, doesn't mean he should rot in hell for an accident.

In order for the murder charge that everyone wants to pin on him to stick, the prosecution will have to prove intent. They can't. Negligence on the armor... maybe.

Intent only has to be proven if they’re going for the charge of murder. According to what a state calls it, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc., proof of intent is not required. It does require a proof of recklessness or criminal negligence,

[Hoggslayer]

Intent only has to be proven if they’re going for the charge of murder. According to what a state calls it, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc., proof of intent is not required. It does require a proof of recklessness or criminal negligence,

That why I said the murder charge. He might get charged with j- walking, but it won't be murder.

[PondPopper]

Long read but may give a little insight and perspective to the whole situation.
Taken from another website and not my words.

How much trouble is Alec Baldwin in?

Background.

There are three defendants in this particular case. Besides Alec Baldwin there is the Assistant Producer David Halls, and the Armorer/Prop Assistant Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. I am going to address the case about Alec here only. If interested you can certainly ask me about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Halls has already taken a deal, will plead guilty and will testify against Alec. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has, the last I have heard, was still going to trial with Alec. Although I suspect the case will be severed, into two separate trials.

Background:
The RUST movie was pitched, by Alec and others as a low cost production ($7,000,000) that had a high probability of making a nice profit. If the movie ends up being sold to a streaming service it will certainly make well over the $7,000,000 dollar production budget.
Well, the investors did NOT want to end up having to fork out $14,000,000 for a movie promised to cost half as much to make. So, the deal was there would steps taken to ensure a production timeline was met inside the budget.
The production, according to multiple film crew members was “Rushed” and safety suffered. Some crew complained about the long commute, long hours, excessive work-loads, and a lack of required safety meetings.
As a critical selling point movie was to be made fast, and cheap. So that meant no fancy special effects. That meant real looking firearm props. In other words, real firearm replicas that functioned as the original.

(Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with a revolver similar to the one that killed the victim.)
Jobs would be combined to save money. The Armorer was also a “Prop” assistant. Which meant she had other duties not directly related to Firearm safety. What’s worse is there were multiple people handling firearms on set in a careless manner. There were in fact two accidental discharges. While I can’t say specifically, it sure looks like anyone and everyone could pick up a firearm, off a cart when it was needed for something.
As part of the budget constraints Mr. Baldwin signed on as a “Producer” with the following limitations. He could only make creative changes to production that did NOT cost more money. So, while Alec was a Producer, his role was limited.
Alec called for appeared to be impromptu rehearsal during a break in filming. There was a rush to get Alec a “Safe” firearm to rehearse with by the Assistant Producer David Halls.
During this rehearsal, the shooting occurred when Alec used a “Cross Draw” to retrieve and point a gun at the camera. The weapon in fact discharged a “Live” round (Bullet) that killed Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins (Left) and injured the Director Joel Souza (Right).


How a live round (Real bullet) got on set, and loaded into that particular weapon was NOT determined during the investigation. What was determined (See the Statement of Probable Cause) was the powder obtained from the live rounds, on set, did NOT match powder taken from live rounds found at the supplier PDQ Arms-
Detectives investigated these facts, including service of a search warrant at the place of business of PDQ Arms and Prop in Albuquerque who was the supplier of the dummies and blanks to RUST. Several suspected live rounds of 45 Long Colt caliber cartridges were seized as a result; some supplied by the company owner to investigator(s), and some found at the place of business. These rounds were submitted to the FBI for comparison with the suspected live rounds found at the shooting scene. The 'Explosives Chemistry' examination of the rounds showed that the smokeless powder in the live rounds found at the scene did not match the live rounds seized from the props/arms supplier in question. This means the lives rounds on RUST did not match the rounds explosive chemistry taken from PDQ Arms and Prop.
Where the “Live rounds” came from was not determined.
As a reference there was a Workplace Safety Investigation undertaken by the New Mexico State Office of Occupational Health and Safety Bureau.

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/ohsb-rust-investigation-report-materials/

A good place to start is a document filed in the Criminal Process that lays out the basis for the charge(s).
The criminal investigation conducted by the Santa Fe County Sheriffs Office also included a forensic analysis of the firearm used in the shooting by the FBI. The findings of this investigation were also turned over to the District Attorney.
From there the District Attorney and reviews the case for charges.
The District Attorney decides which charges to file based on the information contained in the documents.
To summarize the case against Alec-
1. Alec Baldwin missed the mandatory firearm safety training on set.
2. Alec Baldwin was given a special class on how to perform the cross draw by the armorer that was supposed to last an hour. He was on the phone speaking with his family and only participated in about 30 of the 60 minute class.
3. Alec, in his role of producer decided to rehearse the cross-draw scene. He did so without conducting a safety meeting. The Armorer and/or the prop master were not present to monitor safety either.
4. Alec has on numerous occasions insisted that he never pulled the trigger. Unfortunately for Alec, the rehearsal footage shows him putting his finger on the trigger. That leads to the next item.
5. Alec has claimed to be a firearm “Expert” and has been involved in some 40 or so films where firearms, or replicas were used in filming the movie.
6. His claim that he did not pull the trigger flies in the face of known data from studies. People, including Special Forces and elite law enforcement have indeed pulled a trigger NOT knowing that they did.

Now attorneys will often cite case law to more fully define the meaning of the key phrase here.
The key words here are “…….commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”
This is what the Jury will decide. Did Alec behave in such a reckless manner that serious injury or death was likely to happen as an outcome of Alec’s purported carelessness?
This case against Alec was considerably strengthened by Alec giving interviews and making frankly really self-damaging admissions. Chief among which was “I didn’t pull the trigger.” He also had a documented history of self-claimed expert firearm skills. In my opinion I believe Alec may NOT have been charged had he simply, shut up and NOT tried to speak to the Jury pool, via the media.
Well one of the most fundamental rules of firearm safety is keep your finger OFF the trigger until you are ready to fire.
An expert would understand that.
That is because of a study conducted. It discovered the true answer for why guns really “Just went off.”
When a body moves or makes a minor body adjustment the brain involuntarily sends signals to muscles to help the body regain balance. So, when Alec made the cross draw, his finger twitched and the firearm just “Went off.”

It is also recognized in the safety standards published
INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE SAFETY BULLETIN Home RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFETY WITH FIREARMS AND USE OF BLANK AMMUNITION
INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE
Page 2, item number 1 &2
1. Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.
2. NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Keep your finger alongside the firearm and off the trigger. –
Next no qualified person was there to inspect the firearm before or after the impromptu rehearsal took place. (#5 Page 2).
As producer, and without the necessary safeguards Alec called for an impromptu rehearsal. Again, no safety meeting, and no firearm inspection. At that point Alec was in fact a supervisor (The Producer as specified in his contract) who allowed the rehearsal to go forward with the tragic outcome.
Given the standard of probable cause I believe there is a case strong enough to go to trial. Will Alec be convicted? It’s possible. If Gutierrez-Reed decides to take a “Deal” and testify against Alec, it will increase the chances of conviction, IMHO.
How will the trial go? Well this will not be an easy case to prove. It will be natural to blame Halls and Gutierrez-Reed. There is a compelling case here against both of them.
If Gutierrez-Reed takes a “Deal” she may also testify against Alec. Although you can expect Mr. Baldwin’s attorneys to put Halls through the cross examination from hell. It goes double for Gutierrez-Reed. They will go all out to blame the other two defendants.
That is what Alec’s lawyers are paid to do.
On the other hand if Gutierrez-Reed goes to trial I would expect the defendants cases to be severed. Why? Because each defendant’s defense is linked to implicating the other defendant(s).
What about the prosecutor’s motives? I have seen this argument as well. The argument goes along the line of convict Alec, get elected to higher office, or go to work for Cable TV as a “Legal Expert.”
Can I prove or disprove she has those ulterior motives? No, I cannot. When I look at the circumstances of the case, I don’t think that a political consideration is the reason for going forward against Alec.
Santa Fe is a progressive county with all 5 County Supervisors being (DEM) as well as the District Attorney. Going after a famous progressive in a DEM dominated county can get you thrown out of office, if the case crashes and burns. That is entirely possible given the strength of the case against Alec, and the progressive jury pool.
Then there was the attempt by the District Attorney to name a Special Prosecutor in the case. If you want fame, you have to prosecute the case yourself, and not pass it off to someone else. The “Special Prosecutor” indeed expressed political interest in the case. She has since withdrawn.
I just do not see that type of political motive at work here.
The question central to the prosecution is:
How careless was Alec Baldwin, first as an actor, but also as a producer in the production?
Does his careless rise to the level in which he, in an effort to keep the production on budget, decide to sacrifice safety to keep the production on schedule?
Was his carelessness rise to the level of “Without due caution and circumspection.”
Twelve residents, eventually seated on the Jury may have to look at the evidence and make that decision. One thing I do understand. No one can predict what these twelve people will decide.

Very interesting. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the live rounds didn't come from Baldwin himself..

[RiverRat1]

A prop is not a firearm. If he reasonably believed that it was a prop, it loses the required culpability that you are ignoring.

Wait...Was it a prop? Or are you saying the actors thought it was a prop but was a real gun?

[Quackerbox]

in your fresh scenario, the drunk asked for alcohol and knew it was alcohol. Did Baldwin know this was a real firearm and not a prop, which is not a firearm?

you compounded, with your second real life scenario. He pleaded guilty because he was a “willing party” so he had knowledge. Did Baldwin have that knowledge or again, did he think he was being handed a fake gun?

Obviously the drunk knew what he was doing. The point of that post was culpability. The bartender knew she was feeding him vodka and the firearms person had to have known live bullets where available.


They say they was popping caps prior to popping the cap that mattered. So, I mean if you're dumb enough to not notice that stuff is flying out the business end of the barrel, then maybe you need to be locked up.

[tvc184]

Wait...Was it a prop? Or are you saying the actors thought it was a prop but was a real gun?

The law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew. I would bet that he could call 1,000 actors and stuntmen to say that they don’t go behind the armorer and check their work.

[tvc184]

Obviously the drunk knew what he was doing. The point of that post was culpability. The bartender knew she was feeding him vodka and the firearms person had to have known live bullets where available.


They say they was popping caps prior to popping the cap that mattered. So, I mean if you're dumb enough to not notice that stuff is flying out the business end of the barrel, then maybe you need to be locked up.

Did he know?

You know that you can’t get a criminal conviction with, if you’re dumb enough.

If the bartender is guilty of serving an intoxicated person, charge him why the TABC law violation. Does the bartender go to prison for Manslaughter?

[PondPopper]

A prop is not a firearm. If he reasonably believed that it was a prop, it loses the required culpability that you are ignoring.

A “prop”?? Word salad!!
Someone somewhere obviously strongly disagrees with you or there would be no GJ indictment.

[Quackerbox]

Did he know?

You know that you can’t get a criminal conviction with, if you’re dumb enough.

If the bartender is guilty of serving an intoxicated person, charge him why the TABC law violation. Does the bartender go to prison for Manslaughter?

I appreciate your input here and numerous other threads but sometimes you just read to much into posts. Particularly that one.


As for the bartender. Intox manslaughter

Charges against driver to be upgraded after 1 of 3 crash victims declared brain dead (click2houston.com)


as for the other actors going behind the armorer to check his work, that argument is about as good as being dumb enough to go to jail. You know that argument wont work either.

[tvc184]

A “prop”?? Word salad!!
Someone somewhere obviously strongly disagrees with you or there would be no GJ indictment.

It took a DA two years of research to try and figure an angle in an attempt to pin something on him. One botched indictment later….

Why take thousands of hours of investigations, no telling how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, one lost indictment that they knew wouldn’t stick and then finally found an angle to try and squeak something by a grand jury…. that they control?

Because they had nothing and had to try and come up with something.

If this was so clear, he would have already been convicted. It doesn’t take two years for a DA to get a case to a grand jury when they know everyone involved. This isn’t a cold case whodunit.

[Kevin]

It took a DA two years of research to try and figure an angle in an attempt to pin something on him. One botched indictment later….

Why take thousands of hours of investigations, no telling how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, one lost indictment that they knew wouldn’t stick and then finally found an angle to try and squeak something by a grand jury…. that they control?

Because they had nothing and had to try and come up with something.

If this was so clear, he would have already been convicted. It doesn’t take two years for a DA to get a case to a grand jury when they know everyone involved. This isn’t a cold case whodunit.

This here. ^^^^

[Dale Moser]

It took a DA two years of research to try and figure an angle in an attempt to pin something on him. One botched indictment later….

Why take thousands of hours of investigations, no telling how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, one lost indictment that they knew wouldn’t stick and then finally found an angle to try and squeak something by a grand jury…. that they control?

Because they had nothing and had to try and come up with something.

If this was so clear, he would have already been convicted. It doesn’t take two years for a DA to get a case to a grand jury when they know everyone involved. This isn’t a cold case whodunit.

Word Salad!

[PondPopper]

It took a DA two years of research to try and figure an angle in an attempt to pin something on him. One botched indictment later….

Why take thousands of hours of investigations, no telling how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, one lost indictment that they knew wouldn’t stick and then finally found an angle to try and squeak something by a grand jury…. that they control?

Because they had nothing and had to try and come up with something.

If this was so clear, he would have already been convicted. It doesn’t take two years for a DA to get a case to a grand jury when they know everyone involved. This isn’t a cold case whodunit.

There is no set timeline on indictments.
Some happen fast and some happen very slow.
Whether the charge is a misdemeanor or a felony charge plays a huge roll in the speed also.
Some cases, that are cut and dried, take a year or longer.. Don't play dumb.

[RiverRat1]

I'm sure the DA jumped right on this case from the get-go with no opposition.
Because they are out for justice no matter who may have committed a crime, right?

TVC - I know you're correct on the legalities of this case.