Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter

[Scott]

 

Alec Baldwin has been formally charged with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on a movie set in October 2021.

Halyna Hutchins died during the filming of the Western film Rust near Santa Fe, New Mexico, after Mr Baldwin allegedly fired a prop gun during rehearsal.

The film's armourer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was also formally charged on Tuesday with involuntary manslaughter.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64475627

[JonnyF]

Bad news for Baldwin.

 

I always felt his best chance was to use his fame, wealth and connections to get this thrown out before he was formally charged. 

 

Now it's going to trial, all that evidence is going to come out for the world to see. Difficult to see him escaping this one, unless we get another OJ style farce.

 

I hope the family of Halyna Hutchins get justice on this one. Baldwin's reckless, entitled behaviour on the set cannot go unpunished, especially when it resulted in the fatality of an innocent young woman.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Bad news for Baldwin.

 

I always felt his best chance was to use his fame, wealth and connections to get this thrown out before he was formally charged. 

 

Now it's going to trial, all that evidence is going to come out for the world to see. Difficult to see him escaping this one, unless we get another OJ style farce.

Not so difficult to see for some who have a genuine understanding of the law:

 

Harvard Law expert analyzes Alec Baldwin charges in tragic ‘Rust’ shooting death

Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense is that there was no requirement or standard that an actor independently check the gun he was given after it was declared to be “cold” by others on the set... The question is whether the prosecutor will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a clear obligation to check the weapon, which he ignored, whether as actor or producer. He also has an argument that precisely because this prosecution is unprecedented, it violates due process; he would have had no notice of any obligation to independently check the weapon.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/harvard-law-expert-analyzes-alec-baldwin-charges-in-tragic-rust-shooting-death/

 

 

"Involuntary manslaughter charges are most common in fatal traffic accidents involving extreme recklessness, such as intoxication or excessive speeding, according to experts.

None of the publicly available information indicates Baldwin's state of mind was reckless enough to meet that standard, said defense attorney and former prosecutor Joshua Ritter.

“We don’t have all of the evidence, but it still feels like prosecutors face an uphill battle."

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/analysis-alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-case-could-be-tough-for-prosecutors-0

 

[JonnyF]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not so difficult to see for some who have a genuine understanding of the law:

 

Harvard Law expert analyzes Alec Baldwin charges in tragic ‘Rust’ shooting death

Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense is that there was no requirement or standard that an actor independently check the gun he was given after it was declared to be “cold” by others on the set... The question is whether the prosecutor will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a clear obligation to check the weapon, which he ignored, whether as actor or producer. He also has an argument that precisely because this prosecution is unprecedented, it violates due process; he would have had no notice of any obligation to independently check the weapon.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/harvard-law-expert-analyzes-alec-baldwin-charges-in-tragic-rust-shooting-death/

 

 

"Involuntary manslaughter charges are most common in fatal traffic accidents involving extreme recklessness, such as intoxication or excessive speeding, according to experts.

None of the publicly available information indicates Baldwin's state of mind was reckless enough to meet that standard, said defense attorney and former prosecutor Joshua Ritter.

“We don’t have all of the evidence, but it still feels like prosecutors face an uphill battle."

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/analysis-alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-case-could-be-tough-for-prosecutors-0

 

It doesn't need to be extremely reckless, it just needs to be reckless.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_(United_States_law)

 

 

Pointing a gun at someone, when you do not know if it is loaded or not, then pulling the trigger is negligent AND reckless. The state would have been confident of securing a conviction to charge him. He's toast.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

 

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It doesn't need to be extremely reckless, it just needs to be reckless.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_(United_States_law)

 

 

Pointing a gun at someone, when you do not know if it is loaded or not, then pulling the trigger is negligent AND reckless. The state would have been confident of securing a conviction to charge him. He's toast.

 

 

 

Right. All those experienced lawyers and prosecutors got it wrong. And your assertion that because the state is confidently going ahead with the case, that means the Baldwin is "toast". Can you recall 2 recent   prosecutions that were undertaken despite the opinions of most legal experts that they would fail? How did those turn out?

Edited February 1, 2023 by placeholder

[GypsyT]

Typical American ambulance chasing attorneys trying to cash in.

 

There were "safety personel" to be sure gun wasn't loaded.

He trusted them and had zero chance to know.

[Smokey and the Bandit]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Bad news for Baldwin.

 

I always felt his best chance was to use his fame, wealth and connections to get this thrown out before he was formally charged. 

 

Now it's going to trial, all that evidence is going to come out for the world to see. Difficult to see him escaping this one, unless we get another OJ style farce.

 

I hope the family of Halyna Hutchins get justice on this one. Baldwin's reckless, entitled behaviour on the set cannot go unpunished, especially when it resulted in the fatality of an innocent young woman.

Quite agree, its a wonder he didn't go for a plea deal like the assistant director, the one that actually gave him the gun and said it was "cold"?

[JonnyF]

25 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Quite agree, its a wonder he didn't go for a plea deal like the assistant director, the one that actually gave him the gun and said it was "cold"?

He appears to be incredibly arrogant and out of touch with reality. I don't think he's going to do well under questioning. I think he will be indignant and irriatated that someone has the temerity to question him. It won't play out well.

 

I mean I do kind of understand the people that are standing behind him 100%. It's got to be a lot safer than standing in front of him ????.

 

 

[n00dle]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He appears to be incredibly arrogant and out of touch with reality. I don't think he's going to do well under questioning. I think he will be indignant and irriatated that someone has the temerity to question him. It won't play out well.

While i don't doubt his arrogance, he has not shown irritation in any of the police interviews that have been made public. 

[klauskunkel]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Harvard Law expert analyzes Alec Baldwin charges in tragic ‘Rust’ shooting death

Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense is that there was no requirement or standard that an actor independently check the gun he was given after it was declared to be “cold” by others on the set...

I disagree with this analysis. Alec Baldwin is first and foremost an adult person before being an actor, and as such it is his responsibility to check any firearm personally before using it.

[JonnyF]

31 minutes ago, n00dle said:

While i don't doubt his arrogance, he has not shown irritation in any of the police interviews that have been made public. 

I guess you'd need to know his baseline, but to me he seems to be pretty irritated at the 42 minute mark. These police are like pussycats compared to the questions the prosecution will ask. 

 

 

He's already claimed he didn't pull the trigger. Let's see how that claim plays out in the courtroom. No doubt he will blame everyone except himself, despite the fact he was a producer of the movie, he had the gun in his hand when it went off and he was pointing it at the deceased. 

 

Also reports he was on the phone during the gun training, other gun safety incidents on the set prior to this one etc.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/01/alec-baldwin-inattentive-rust-gun-training-say-prosecutors-actor/

 

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

 

 

He's got a lot of explaining to do.

 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I guess you'd need to know his baseline, but to me he seems to be pretty irritated at the 42 minute mark. These police are like pussycats compared to the questions the prosecution will ask. 

 

 

He's already claimed he didn't pull the trigger. Let's see how that claim plays out in the courtroom. No doubt he will blame everyone except himself, despite the fact he was a producer of the movie, he had the gun in his hand when it went off and he was pointing it at the deceased

What makes you think he's going to testify in court? What makes you think the prosecutors are going to have the opportunity to question him in court?

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What makes you think he's going to testify in court? What makes you think the prosecutors are going to have the opportunity to question him in court?

3 reasons.

 

1.   He would be very foolish not to testify given all the people testifying against him (David Halls for example). He will want to have his say.

2.  His arrogance will convince him that he will do a great job on the stand.

3.  A narcissist like him will be unable to resist the fuel that such an occasion will provide.

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

3 reasons.

 

1.   He would be very foolish not to testify given all the people testifying against him (David Halls for example). He will want to have his say.

2.  His arrogance will convince him that he will do a great job on the stand.

3.  A narcissist like him will be unable to resist the fuel that such an occasion will provide.

Your psychological credentials are about as impressive as your legal ones.

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your psychological credentials are about as impressive as your legal ones.

If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask. It's very easy to ignore people whose opinion you don't respect, I demonstrate this with you all the time ????.

 

BTW you'd be very surprised if you knew my Psychological credentials. Although I have to admit my legal credentials are probably only marginally superior to yours.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask. It's very easy to ignore people whose opinion you don't respect, I demonstrate this with you all the time ????.

 

BTW you'd be very surprised if you knew my Psychological credentials. Although I have to admit my legal credentials are probably only marginally superior to yours.

If you don't want your comments to be criticized, don't make them.

And I don't care what an anonymous member of aseannow.com claims are their credentials.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you don't want your comments to be criticized, don't make them.

You didn't criticize my comments. You were unable to do that so you made a fatuous comment about me. Weak...

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And I don't care what an anonymous member of aseannow.com claims are their credentials.

If you don't care about my credentials, why mention them in the first place?

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You didn't criticize my comments. You were unable to do that so you made a fatuous comment about me. Weak...

 

If you don't care about my credentials, why mention them in the first place?

 You made absolute judgements and predictions, the kind that no actual expert would make. Hence the irony in challenging your qualifications as a legal scholar or psychologist.

[Hummin]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Bad news for Baldwin.

 

I always felt his best chance was to use his fame, wealth and connections to get this thrown out before he was formally charged. 

 

Now it's going to trial, all that evidence is going to come out for the world to see. Difficult to see him escaping this one, unless we get another OJ style farce.

 

I hope the family of Halyna Hutchins get justice on this one. Baldwin's reckless, entitled behaviour on the set cannot go unpunished, especially when it resulted in the fatality of an innocent young woman.

Comparison to OJ Simpson now? You must be out of your mind putting the blaim on Baldwin fir this one. Only In America, no other place anyone with their insanity intact would ever blaim anyone else than the prop responsible, or the responsible ones in the prop crew who handed over the gun to Baldwin.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

3 reasons.

 

1.   He would be very foolish not to testify given all the people testifying against him (David Halls for example). He will want to have his say.

2.  His arrogance will convince him that he will do a great job on the stand.

3.  A narcissist like him will be unable to resist the fuel that such an occasion will provide.

I would say it's nothing to do with Mr. Baldwin, but a case for the prop manager and the movie insurance company.

Edited February 1, 2023 by BritManToo

[Thingamabob]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

3 reasons.

 

1.   He would be very foolish not to testify given all the people testifying against him (David Halls for example). He will want to have his say.

2.  His arrogance will convince him that he will do a great job on the stand.

3.  A narcissist like him will be unable to resist the fuel that such an occasion will provide.

You appear to know him very well. 

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It doesn't need to be extremely reckless, it just needs to be reckless.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_(United_States_law)

 

 

Pointing a gun at someone, when you do not know if it is loaded or not, then pulling the trigger is negligent AND reckless. The state would have been confident of securing a conviction to charge him. He's toast.

 

 

 

And that's precisely why they have a gun master on the set, who's job it is to make sure the gun is cold and she said the gun is cold when she handed it to Baldwin! I'd be extremely surprised if Baldwin goes down for this!!!

[cleopatra2]

31 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

And that's precisely why they have a gun master on the set, who's job it is to make sure the gun is cold and she said the gun is cold when she handed it to Baldwin! I'd be extremely surprised if Baldwin goes down for this!!!

The armorer did not hand the gun to A Baldwin . She advised that a replica should be used, but A Baldwin insisted on using a real gun.

 

[cleopatra2]

8 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Quite agree, its a wonder he didn't go for a plea deal like the assistant director, the one that actually gave him the gun and said it was "cold"?

I am not sure how a plea deal would be of benefit.

In Baldwin's indemnification complaint , Baldwin acknowledges that the armorer told him she

is the person responsible for checking the gun.

Thus did Hall have the authority to claim the gun cold , and Baldwin correct to accept his assurance.

[bangon04]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

Baldwin’s likely or strongest defense is that there was no requirement or standard that an actor independently check the gun he was given after it was declared to be “cold” by others on the set... The question is whether the prosecutor will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a clear obligation to check the weapon, which he ignored, whether as actor or producer. He also has an argument that precisely because this prosecution is unprecedented, it violates due process; he would have had no notice of any obligation to independently check the weapon.

 

Brandon Lee might have a slightly different opinion........

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

The armorer did not hand the gun to A Baldwin . She advised that a replica should be used, but A Baldwin insisted on using a real gun.

 

Doesn't change the fact that she should've done her job and check the gun!

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Doesn't change the fact that she should've done her job and check the gun!

You do realize that it's possible they were both at fault?

[JonnyF]

12 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

You appear to know him very well. 

Thanks.

[cleopatra2]

3 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Doesn't change the fact that she should've done her job and check the gun

If A Baldwin is correct to accept the statement from Halls that the gun was cold.Then Hall is responsible for checking the gun What the armorer did/didn't  do is somewhat moot. It was Hall that declared the gun safe , 

If the armorer is guilty then A Baldwin was negligent in not getting the armorer assurance the gun was cold. Baldwin's negligence ( assuming he would have acted differently knowing the gun was hot), caused the death and injury of persons.

[pacovl46]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:58 AM, JonnyF said:

You do realize that it's possible they were both at fault?

If you mean the woman who was the prop master and the guy who handed the gun to Baldwin, who said it was cold then yes, they're both at fault.