My point wasn’t that he was guilty beyond doubt, but that was likely the reasoning used for charging him, that he’s responsible for the set running smoothly, was probably very hands on, as this was a passion project, and was right there when the accident happened. Whether or not that proved, will see in the case itself.
7 Likes
Involuntary manslaughter is just a fancy legal term for “murder by negligence.”
6 Likes
I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that’s been made public that indicates a high level of negligence on the part of many people involved in the production, including Baldwin in his role as executive producer, but from what I’ve seen reported it’s a huge stretch to say that he actually knew that the gun was loaded with real ammunition.
2 Likes
I don’t think the charges for Baldwin are for pulling the trigger, it appears he would have been charged no matter who pulled the trigger because he was responsible for making sure the set was safe.
The assistant director was charged and made a plea deal that included no jail time.
Halls signed a plea agreement “for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon,” the district attorney’s office announced in its statement Thursday. Prosecutors said the terms of that deal include six months of probation and a suspended sentence.
3 Likes
Sorry I meant the woman who was the armourer.
2 Likes
And there was an armorer, prop master and 2nd AD all with the responsibility to ensure an actor is given a prop* gun that was safe to use on set.
*Prop meaning anything handled by an actor in front of a camera
See my first point. An actor on a set in front of a camera isn’t the one who is responsible for ensuring the safety of a prop firearm used in a scene. There are 3 separate people who do that. At no point would he have reason to suspect the gun was loaded with live ammo.
And how much of it being admissible or probative is for a court to decide.
Wrong. Its just the level of intent is far different from other forms of homicide. The intent for manslaughter is that one does something they know is likely to result in serious injury or death.
He’s going to beat the rap because this is wildly overcharging for what is ostensibly civil negligence. He has the means for good legal counsel and the prosecutors are aiming to make a name for themselves.
I don’t think she was, necessarily. But it would also be on the producer and director to ensure that such a critical person to safety on the set was able to do their job properly.
5 Likes
None of which amounts to manslaughter. Its a very specific charge with very specific elements as to how the death is caused, how directly involved was the accused, and their knowledge as to whether their act was likely to cause death.
That is what they’ve both been charged with, so I assume that there is some evidence to suggest to the prosecution that this is indeed involuntary manslaughter under however it’s defined in New Mexico… Keep in mind that the prosecution likely has evidence that we as the general public with no connection to these events, except through the news reports around it, do not have. 
6 Likes
I think the prosecutors in New Mexico know what the elements of the crime of involuntary manslaughter are. In fact, they explained the elements in one of their many press conferences and explicitly mentioned that the involuntary part of it means that intent was not an element of the crime. They explicitly defined both the elements of the lesser and the greater charge in their press conferences, and given they have a cooperating witness as well as evidence we’ve not seen yet, I suspect that Mr. Baldwin’s attorneys are going to seek a plea deal instead of letting a jury decide.
3 Likes
Which will be fatal to trying to pin criminal homicide charges on him. There are 3 people on a set who are responsible for ensuring a prop gun is safe for use (Armorer, Prop Master and 2nd Assistant Director). Baldwin wasn’t one of them.
The facts don’t fit any theory for involuntary manslaughter, nor are likely to.
Unless Baldwin had a designated role as prop master, armorer or 2nd Assistant director, he could not be held criminally liable for what he did in front of the camera. His role as a producer is too far removed from the actual cause of the death to be considered homicide as well.
Those are questions that might reasonably be asked of a jury. Should Baldwin the actor/shooter have known that the gun might have been loaded after having gone “plinking” X hours/days before using the same gun on-set? Should Baldwin as the Producer also have known? If a jury says yes to one or both, then he can be held responsible the same way a DWI offender or reckless driver can if they kill a pedestrian.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Not if you are trying to meet the definition of involuntary manslaughter.
“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"
Whether the gun was loaded and with the correct ammunition for the set was never Baldwin’s role as an actor in front of the camera. The only people who could act “with due caution and circumspection” were those responsible for handling the gun props.
What Baldwin could have suspected has no bearing on who had the responsibility for handling the firearm before giving it to him on the set. An actor is not a person on a firing range with a gun. They are expected to do things with prop guns as part of make-believe that you aren’t supposed to do anywhere else. An actor is not an on set safety technician.
Whatever he did as a producer has nothing to do with manslaughter and meets civil definitions of negligence.
2 Likes
I think they know the definitions, but don’t care. Prosecutors doing stupid unprofessional things for publicity are more common than dirt. Intent is always part of the crime. Its just defined differently from murder or criminally negligent homicide. Intent for involuntary manslaughter is intent to commit the act known to be likely to cause harm/death. As opposed to intent to harm others with murder. The prosecutors are giving nonsense to the public.
I suspect Baldwin’s attorneys are going to eat these people for lunch.
1 Like
It’s:
“lawful act which might produce death…”
and then OR
“without due caution”
I was copying and pasting Justia with the exact statute. Hence the link.
Which defines intent there. It means one has to be aware their act is likely to be deadly and the person had some duty to exercise caution there. You can’t say an actor being handed a prop gun by an armorer could be aware they had a deadly weapon, nor would they have a duty to check the gun. That is literally the armorer’s job. Not the actor’s.
1 Like
You keep calling a loaded firearm a “prop gun.” It’s not a prop gun in the eyes of New Mexico law. It’s a firearm. It’s a weapon. And people being handed firearms in the state of New Mexico have a duty of care when handling those firearms. I think I’m done here, we’re going in circles.
It’s not a toy. It’s not a prop. It’s a weapon. People holding and handling weapons, even unloaded ones, have a duty of care in most states. That’s what happened here. Stop trying to make it into something other than what it was, a weapon. It’s not a toy. It’s not a “prop gun”. It’s a weapon. And I don’t think they’ll have nearly as hard of time convincing people that a deadly weapon is indeed a deadly weapon. It doesn’t magically become not a deadly weapon when it’s on a movie set, or when it’s handled by special people.
3 Likes
After The Crow, you could argue that an actor did have a duty, especially if in their dual role as Producer they had reason to know of any particularly egregious firearm neglect issues occurring on-set, which from the facts we don’t know just yet.
3 Likes
