Yeah, he's not getting out of this without a felony conviction and probation at a minimum.

Third and fourth degree felony offenses (involuntary manslaughter is a fourth degree felony) had relatively low rates of imprisonment, but accounted for more than three quarters of all cases leading to imprisonment.

Fourth degree felonies and misdemeanors contributed three quarters of all cases sentenced to probation.

For those of you wondering, if he did this in Texas, he would have been facing up to twenty years

The plot of Rust, the movie he was filming at the time of the shooting: In 1880s Kansas, aging outlaw Harland Rust comes out of hiding to rescue his thirteen-year-old grandson Lucas, who has been sentenced to hang for murder after an accidental shooting.

The plot of the movie is ironic

LOL. No she's not a Republican. And there was a Special Counsel appointed who will be the main prosecutor. Behar is so delusional.

Joy Behar: "The DA who is indicting him...She's a big Republican. I'm only saying this because Alec Baldwin is a target for Republicans...I'm just saying." pic.twitter.com/MkAoYF2QdH

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 20, 2023

Jensen Ackles from Supernatural would have been in the movie Alec Baldwin was filming at the time of the shooting.

Rust is an upcoming American Western film written and directed by Joel Souza. The film stars Alec Baldwin (who also produces, and co-wrote the story with Souza), Travis Fimmel, Brady Noon, Frances Fisher, and Jensen Ackles.

In 1880s Kansas, aging outlaw Harland Rust comes out of hiding to rescue his thirteen-year-old grandson Lucas, who has been sentenced to hang for murder after an accidental shooting. Now fugitives, the pair have to outrun both Rust's nemesis, U.S. Marshal Wood Helm, and the vicious bounty hunter Fenton "Preacher" Lang.

Alec Baldwin would have played Harland Rust, and Jensen Ackles would have played U.S. Marshal Wood Helm. Baldwin said the movie was inspired by a true story

I thought they were still going to release it?

They might still release it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

TLR--the DA is not really stating the correct standard. Simple negligence and that negligent discharge misdemeanor are not going to be enough to convict Baldwin for involuntary manslaughter.

I am really, really intrigued by this. The DA talks as if all she has to prove is simple negligence. Many cases in New Mexico make crystal clear that to get a manslaughter conviction the DA needs to prove the defendant was "criminally negligent, or reckless, wanton, or willful" and not just negligent. State v. Yarbrough from the N.M. Supreme Court, which is where that quote comes from, is among the more prominent. Similarly, the Uniform Jury Instructions require not just that the defendant should have known of the danger but also that the defendant "acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others." Frankly that UJI doesn't quite capture the New Mexico Supreme Court caselaw, which is a little stronger in favor of the defendant. The DA's little press tour seems to indicate she thinks simple negligence will do it. It will not. And the misdemeanor negligent gun handling charge alone will not suffice. That misdemeanor can stick on a showing of simple (not criminal) negligence. And she can't convict him of a felony based on a misdemeanor charge that can be had on a simple showing of negligence. In fact Yarbrough addressed that exact theory--an effort by the state to use a vehicle code misdemeanor to "bootstrap" into an involuntary manslaughter charge. The N.M. Supreme Court held that a simple misdemeanor is not enough. The misdemeanor has to be "malum in se"--involve an inherently bad act to support a manslaughter charge. And the way this particular misdemeanor the DA is referring to regarding Baldwin is written, it is not really malum in se--it is a negligent discharge statute and in fact, like speeding or similar misdemeanors, could be violated with no ill intent or heightened level of negligence (as happened here based on everything known).

Similarly, although the involuntary manslaughter statute has the phrase "without due cause and circumspection" the DA quoted, the N.M. Supreme Court has clearly held that the stronger "willful disregard" language is a requirement to convict. In fact a good defense attorney would probably win a motion to stop her from using the "without due cause and circumspection" phrase because it is inconsistent with the law, the actual (likely) jury instruction and is inherently confusing to a jury. So all this talk to the press by the DA about "negligence" without properly stating the actual standard is either purely tactical or ignorant.

I think the armorer is going to get convicted, and rightfully so. I think Baldwin is facing a coin flip on the misdemeanor. But I have trouble seeing a conviction of Baldwin on a felony involuntary manslaughter charge. I would have trouble convicting him based on what I know. Imagine the following two scenarios.

1. You drive a fleet vehicle for your job. The brakes go soft at the end of the day. Dangerously soft. You tell maintenance, and even tell them if they don't get it fixed someone could get hurt. They say they'll take care of it. Next day you go in, see maintenance, they say it's all taken care of, off you go. Brakes immediately fail on the way out of the lot and you run someone over crossing the driveway. Should you have tested the brakes? Maybe. Are you criminally negligent for trusting maintenance? Nope. (This a very realistic scenario.) Should maintenance get convicted? Maybe so.

2. You are in a play. The prop dagger retracts when pressed against another actor. The prop master hands you the wrong dagger before scene five and you stab someone. Same issues.

Baldwin was expressly told it was a "cold gun" on a movie set by someone whose job it was to know. "Cold gun" has a particular meaning. To continue the vehicle analogy, "cold gun" means "brakes work." He was clearly told wrong, and the armorer should probably serve jail time and she should also be horribly ashamed at what she caused by not doing her job. A properly conscientious gun owner would very likely have checked the gun anyhow out of habit, and maybe "some actors" do like the DA says. (As an aside, I've never heard a DA say they conducted an anecdotal, informal survey of a handful of actors to determine the standard of care for criminal negligence.) But how would Baldwin tell a dummy from a live round? And why would he even think live rounds were on the set in the first place? They weren't supposed to be there, and I am not aware of evidence that he knew or even should have known live rounds were mixed in (the fact that it is astounding that that happened is actually something that helps him). I wonder whether the DA is grandstanding here for fifteen minutes of fame, and at the very least she is intentionally misstating the law or, even worse, trying to condition a jury pool in a pretty small county.

I am aghast at the armorer, the state of the set, and the fact that there were live rounds on the property at all. Just stunningly incompetent. And I would like to think I would check a firearm in that situation and see the problem. But not sure Baldwin is going to jail any time soon, or ever. Do we send people to jail for crappy hiring?

SoCalAg91 said:

---

TLR--the DA is not really stating the correct standard. Simple negligence and that negligent discharge misdemeanor are not going to be enough to convict Baldwin for involuntary manslaughter.

I am really, really intrigued by this. The DA talks as if all she has to prove is simple negligence. Many cases in New Mexico make crystal clear that to get a manslaughter conviction the DA needs to prove the defendant was "criminally negligent, or reckless, wanton, or willful" and not just negligent. State v. Yarbrough from the N.M. Supreme Court, which is where that quote comes from, is among the more prominent. Similarly, the Uniform Jury Instructions require not just that the defendant should have known of the danger but also that the defendant "acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others." Frankly that UJI doesn't quite capture the New Mexico Supreme Court caselaw, which is a little stronger in favor of the defendant. The DA's little press tour seems to indicate she thinks simple negligence will do it. It will not. And the misdemeanor negligent gun handling charge alone will not suffice. That misdemeanor can stick on a showing of simple (not criminal) negligence. And she can't convict him of a felony based on a misdemeanor charge that can be had on a simple showing of negligence. In fact Yarbrough addressed that exact theory--an effort by the state to use a vehicle code misdemeanor to "bootstrap" into an involuntary manslaughter charge. The N.M. Supreme Court held that a simple misdemeanor is not enough. The misdemeanor has to be "malum in se"--involve an inherently bad act to support a manslaughter charge. And the way this particular misdemeanor the DA is referring to regarding Baldwin is written, it is not really malum in se--it is a negligent discharge statute and in fact, like speeding or similar misdemeanors, could be violated with no ill intent or heightened level of negligence (as happened here based on everything known).

Similarly, although the involuntary manslaughter statute has the phrase "without due cause and circumspection" the DA quoted, the N.M. Supreme Court has clearly held that the stronger "willful disregard" language is a requirement to convict. In fact a good defense attorney would probably win a motion to stop her from using the "without due cause and circumspection" phrase because it is inconsistent with the law, the actual (likely) jury instruction and is inherently confusing to a jury. So all this talk to the press by the DA about "negligence" without properly stating the actual standard is either purely tactical or ignorant.

I think the armorer is going to get convicted, and rightfully so. I think Baldwin is facing a coin flip on the misdemeanor. But I have trouble seeing a conviction of Baldwin on a felony involuntary manslaughter charge. I would have trouble convicting him based on what I know. Imagine the following two scenarios.

1. You drive a fleet vehicle for your job. The brakes go soft at the end of the day. Dangerously soft. You tell maintenance, and even tell them if they don't get it fixed someone could get hurt. They say they'll take care of it. Next day you go in, see maintenance, they say it's all taken care of, off you go. Brakes immediately fail on the way out of the lot and you run someone over crossing the driveway. Should you have tested the brakes? Maybe. Are you criminally negligent for trusting maintenance? Nope. (This a very realistic scenario.) Should maintenance get convicted? Maybe so.

2. You are in a play. The prop dagger retracts when pressed against another actor. The prop master hands you the wrong dagger before scene five and you stab someone. Same issues.

Baldwin was expressly told it was a "cold gun" on a movie set by someone whose job it was to know. "Cold gun" has a particular meaning. To continue the vehicle analogy, "cold gun" means "brakes work." He was clearly told wrong, and the armorer should probably serve jail time and she should also be horribly ashamed at what she caused by not doing her job. A properly conscientious gun owner would very likely have checked the gun anyhow out of habit, and maybe "some actors" do like the DA says. (As an aside, I've never heard a DA say they conducted an anecdotal, informal survey of a handful of actors to determine the standard of care for criminal negligence.) But how would Baldwin tell a dummy from a live round? And why would he even think live rounds were on the set in the first place? They weren't supposed to be there, and I am not aware of evidence that he knew or even should have known live rounds were mixed in (the fact that it is astounding that that happened is actually something that helps him). I wonder whether the DA is grandstanding here for fifteen minutes of fame, and at the very least she is intentionally misstating the law or, even worse, trying to condition a jury pool in a pretty small county.

I am aghast at the armorer, the state of the set, and the fact that there were live rounds on the property at all. Just stunningly incompetent. And I would like to think I would check a firearm in that situation and see the problem. But not sure Baldwin is going to jail any time soon, or ever. Do we send people to jail for crappy hiring?

---

LOL. That's really bad analysis.

I'd be interested in more detail behind your reaction especially in light of what the law is. I'd also
be interested in your thoughts on the DA's public statements about what the law is.

aggiehawg said:

---

LOL. No she's not a Republican. And there was a Special Counsel appointed who will be the main prosecutor. Behar is so delusional.

Joy Behar: "The DA who is indicting him...She's a big Republican. I'm only saying this because Alec Baldwin is a target for Republicans...I'm just saying." pic.twitter.com/MkAoYF2QdH

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 20, 2023

---

If that daft see you next Tuesday lost one more brain cell, she'd have only the lonely.

Legit question from a position of ignorance. Just from appearance, can one tell a live round from a "dummy" round?

Yes. The projectile "bullet" will be missing from the cartridge.

A live round is composed of three main units. A cartridge casing (brass/plastic/paper), explosive or propellant (gun powder), projectile (the actual lead/copper/metal chunk that is either affixed into the end of the cartridge (rifles and pistols) or stored in the cartridge (shotguns). There are nuances to this such as rat shot for some 22s doesn't really have an external piece of metal projectile and the fact that you also need a primer (smaller explosive) which is hit by the firing pin to start the explosive reaction to ignite the propellant - this is located in the center of the bottom (backend) of the cartridge. Additionally smoke producing prop/blank rounds won't have a projectile but might look different than either.



If Alec Baldwin had practiced the most basic gun safety tips - treating all fire arms as if they are loaded AND checking to see if the gun is loaded yourself (because at the point of you holding the gun it's now your sole responsibility…) this probably would have been avoided.

Alec Baldwin has never had to act responsibly, as every time he has shown his rear end, or pulled some BS that has affected other people, he just waits it out by dropping out of sight for a while, then when the heat blows over is welcomed with open arms by Hollywood and its water toting media like nothing ever happened.

If Alec Baldwin's attorneys tell him to plead for a stint in the pokey for more than a couple of months (say like a year or more), he'll bail on the country. Why should he be held accountable now, when he's never had to?

lethalninja said:

---

Jensen Ackles from Supernatural would have been in the movie Alec Baldwin was filming at the time of the shooting.

Rust is an upcoming American Western film written and directed by Joel Souza. The film stars Alec Baldwin (who also produces, and co-wrote the story with Souza), Travis Fimmel, Brady Noon, Frances Fisher, and Jensen Ackles.

In 1880s Kansas, aging outlaw Harland Rust comes out of hiding to rescue his thirteen-year-old grandson Lucas, who has been sentenced to hang for murder after an accidental shooting. Now fugitives, the pair have to outrun both Rust's nemesis, U.S. Marshal Wood Helm, and the vicious bounty hunter Fenton "Preacher" Lang.

Alec Baldwin would have played Harland Rust, and Jensen Ackles would have played U.S. Marshal Wood Helm. Baldwin said the movie was inspired by a true story

---

You literally pasted that off the internet

SoCalAg91 said:

---

TLR--the DA is not really stating the correct standard. Simple negligence and that negligent discharge misdemeanor are not going to be enough to convict Baldwin for involuntary manslaughter.

I am really, really intrigued by this. The DA talks as if all she has to prove is simple negligence. Many cases in New Mexico make crystal clear that to get a manslaughter conviction the DA needs to prove the defendant was "criminally negligent, or reckless, wanton, or willful" and not just negligent. State v. Yarbrough from the N.M. Supreme Court, which is where that quote comes from, is among the more prominent. Similarly, the Uniform Jury Instructions require not just that the defendant should have known of the danger but also that the defendant "acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others." Frankly that UJI doesn't quite capture the New Mexico Supreme Court caselaw, which is a little stronger in favor of the defendant. The DA's little press tour seems to indicate she thinks simple negligence will do it. It will not. And the misdemeanor negligent gun handling charge alone will not suffice. That misdemeanor can stick on a showing of simple (not criminal) negligence. And she can't convict him of a felony based on a misdemeanor charge that can be had on a simple showing of negligence. In fact Yarbrough addressed that exact theory--an effort by the state to use a vehicle code misdemeanor to "bootstrap" into an involuntary manslaughter charge. The N.M. Supreme Court held that a simple misdemeanor is not enough. The misdemeanor has to be "malum in se"--involve an inherently bad act to support a manslaughter charge. And the way this particular misdemeanor the DA is referring to regarding Baldwin is written, it is not really malum in se--it is a negligent discharge statute and in fact, like speeding or similar misdemeanors, could be violated with no ill intent or heightened level of negligence (as happened here based on everything known).

Similarly, although the involuntary manslaughter statute has the phrase "without due cause and circumspection" the DA quoted, the N.M. Supreme Court has clearly held that the stronger "willful disregard" language is a requirement to convict. In fact a good defense attorney would probably win a motion to stop her from using the "without due cause and circumspection" phrase because it is inconsistent with the law, the actual (likely) jury instruction and is inherently confusing to a jury. So all this talk to the press by the DA about "negligence" without properly stating the actual standard is either purely tactical or ignorant.

I think the armorer is going to get convicted, and rightfully so. I think Baldwin is facing a coin flip on the misdemeanor. But I have trouble seeing a conviction of Baldwin on a felony involuntary manslaughter charge. I would have trouble convicting him based on what I know. Imagine the following two scenarios.

1. You drive a fleet vehicle for your job. The brakes go soft at the end of the day. Dangerously soft. You tell maintenance, and even tell them if they don't get it fixed someone could get hurt. They say they'll take care of it. Next day you go in, see maintenance, they say it's all taken care of, off you go. Brakes immediately fail on the way out of the lot and you run someone over crossing the driveway. Should you have tested the brakes? Maybe. Are you criminally negligent for trusting maintenance? Nope. (This a very realistic scenario.) Should maintenance get convicted? Maybe so.

2. You are in a play. The prop dagger retracts when pressed against another actor. The prop master hands you the wrong dagger before scene five and you stab someone. Same issues.

Baldwin was expressly told it was a "cold gun" on a movie set by someone whose job it was to know. "Cold gun" has a particular meaning. To continue the vehicle analogy, "cold gun" means "brakes work." He was clearly told wrong, and the armorer should probably serve jail time and she should also be horribly ashamed at what she caused by not doing her job. A properly conscientious gun owner would very likely have checked the gun anyhow out of habit, and maybe "some actors" do like the DA says. (As an aside, I've never heard a DA say they conducted an anecdotal, informal survey of a handful of actors to determine the standard of care for criminal negligence.) But how would Baldwin tell a dummy from a live round? And why would he even think live rounds were on the set in the first place? They weren't supposed to be there, and I am not aware of evidence that he knew or even should have known live rounds were mixed in (the fact that it is astounding that that happened is actually something that helps him). I wonder whether the DA is grandstanding here for fifteen minutes of fame, and at the very least she is intentionally misstating the law or, even worse, trying to condition a jury pool in a pretty small county.

I am aghast at the armorer, the state of the set, and the fact that there were live rounds on the property at all. Just stunningly incompetent. And I would like to think I would check a firearm in that situation and see the problem. But not sure Baldwin is going to jail any time soon, or ever. Do we send people to jail for crappy hiring?

---

if you cant follow basic firearm safety rules treat every gun as if it is loaded and dont point at anything you arentv willing to shoot you dont deserve to handle a gun

I absolutely think he'll flee the country if he ends up having to do legit jail time.

Those are blanks, not "dummy" rounds.

A dummy round for photography sake will have the outward appearance of a live round, but without powder or primer.

If done correctly, they'd be a painted polymer casting made to look like a cartridge. If done cheaply, they're cross-drilled brass with a projectile pressed and crimped.

lethalninja said:

---

They might still release it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

---

They were actually slated to resume filming later this month, with the dead lady's husband as an executive producer. It may have been some part of a civil settlement. However, I can't see how it can possibly go on with criminal charges looming. Seems kind of stupid to go on with it in any circumstance.

torrid said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

They might still release it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

---

They were actually slated to resume filming later this month, with the dead lady's husband as an executive producer. It may have been some part of a civil settlement. However, I can't see how it can possibly go on with criminal charges looming. Seems kind of stupid to go on with it in any circumstance.

---

I believe that is accurate. Part of the settlement of the wrongful death civil suit. Now it may be the insurance company raises the premium for the policy on the resumption of filming due to Baldwin's inavailability but that kind of depends where they are at for principal photography. If they only had a few days left for example.

The libs reporting is really unfortunate. Baldwin is a liberal, the media is liberal, Hollywood is liberal. And, oh by the way, they are also dishonest.

Now my point if it has not already been stated. What if the worker killed was black. Would it have been murder like in the Floyd case?

TexasRebel said:

---

Those are blanks, not "dummy" rounds.

A dummy round for photography sake will have the outward appearance of a live round, but without powder or primer.

If done correctly, they'd be a painted polymer casting made to look like a cartridge. If done cheaply, they're cross-drilled brass with a projectile pressed and crimped.

---

Exactly. And in the barrel of a revolver they would not be visually distinguishable from live rounds. And an actor would have no reason to suspect they were live if live rounds were not even supposed to be on the set.

Edit: drum of the revolver, not barrel.

Film productions involve pointing guns at people almost every day. Go watch Saving Private Ryan or a John Wick film. They also involve jumping cars, putting people under water, driving over 55, etc.

At the end of the day all negligence, even gross negligence or criminal negligence is about standard of care. And it's hard to see how an actor violated a standard of care by doing what every single actor in every single production involving guns has done for probably 100 years. You guys may hate the actor or whatever, but I have trouble seeing a conviction here.

I said I was intrigued, and I am. I just cannot see it based on the legal standards and the well-established relevant practices in the industry.

I don't think the charges are based on liberal or conservative politics. I think the DA is immensely enjoying the publicity it brings. Go look at her website. It's all about her. Probably thinking of running for governor or AG. Or honestly some prosecutors just discover one day that they love the cameras.

It is indicted properly. Involuntary manslaughter. Real simple. Not murder but still a crime and he should pay.

SoCalAg91 said:

---

Film productions involve pointing guns at people almost every day. Go watch Saving Private Ryan or a John Wick film. They also involve jumping cars, putting people under water, driving over 55, etc.

At the end of the day all negligence, even gross negligence or criminal negligence is about standard of care. And it's hard to see how an actor violated a standard of care by doing what every single actor in every single production involving guns has done for probably 100 years. You guys may hate the actor or whatever, but I have trouble seeing a conviction here.

I said I was intrigued, and I am. I just cannot see it based on the legal standards and the well-established relevant practices in the industry.

---

and film production kills people because of there gross negligence in handling guns

nra trains you to not point guns at people without intent to kill
hollywood should learn from the nra they would be safer and this lady woukd be allive

SoCalAg91 said:

---

Film productions involve pointing guns at people almost every day. Go watch Saving Private Ryan or a John Wick film. They also involve jumping cars, putting people under water, driving over 55, etc.

At the end of the day all negligence, even gross negligence or criminal negligence is about standard of care. And it's hard to see how an actor violated a standard of care by doing what every single actor in every single production involving guns has done for probably 100 years. You guys may hate the actor or whatever, but I have trouble seeing a conviction here.

I said I was intrigued, and I am. I just cannot see it based on the legal standards and the well-established relevant practices in the industry.

---

You're using the right words but misapplying them. There is a standard of care in shooting movies and, as far as I can tell, Baldwin violated that standard. They typically use trick angles to make it look like an actor is pointing a gun at someone else when in reality they're not. Even with that, the person holding the gun has a duty to verify that there are no live rounds in the weapon. Baldwin took someone else's word without checking fir himself, hence violating the standard of care. You don't get to point the finger at someone else and say they handed you a live weapon, you need to check for yourself

After looking at New Mexico criminal law, I agree with you on the charge of involuntary manslaughter. Absent malice a homicide (a broad act of killing a human being) is either justified or not. Given the material presented, this homicide cannot be deemed justified, so it must fall into some category defined in the law.

If one commits a homicide and Baldwin certainly did then it seems to me if it were not justified, then he must stand at the least go before a grand jury. The DA has elected, apparently based on evidence, to forgo this step and go with the judgement of 12.

(Edit: regarding pointing guns at others in filming). I can tell you from direct first person experience that what you are saying is flat out incorrect.

Quote:

---

Edit: drum of the revolver, not barrel.

---

It is called a cylinder not a drum...

Baldwin was also a producer. It would not shock me if the prosecutors try to tie his responsibility in through that angle. If he had a hand in making the set unsafe, he's going to take on some added responsibility for the shooting beyond pulling the trigger.

As to standard of care, Baldwin's stunt double had already had two accidental discharges with the same gun, albeit with blanks, which are still dangerous, after being told his gun was unloaded and safe. Someone else on set had an accidental discharge while handling a gun that was supposed to be unloaded. That's 3 accidental discharges in 10 days of filming, so basically an accidental discharge every other day. With that kind of environment, actors should have been keenly aware of the possibility of being misinformed about the weapon they were being handed and should have been doing their own due diligence. "I was told it was safe," doesn't really cut it when you know that had been repeatedly untrue.

That all said, there's no reason for Baldwin to have pulled the trigger on the first place. The shooting was in a talk about camera angles. Even when you're necessarily violating the most basic rules of firearm safety by pointing a gun at someone for filming, you shouldn't pull the trigger unless you're actually filming. Whether that would have changed anything is up for debate, but that was unnecessary in that moment.

Quote:

---

That all said, there's no reason for Baldwin to have pulled the trigger on the first place. The shooting was in a talk about camera angles. Even when you're necessarily violating the most basic rules of firearm safety by pointing a gun at someone for filming, you shouldn't pull the trigger unless you're actually filming. Whether that would have changed anything is up for debate, but that was unnecessary in that moment.

---

There was video of Baldwin rehearsing for that shot while they were setting up for different angles. He cross drew his gun three times, each time he had his finger on the trigger, not in front of the trigger guard.

Movies don't use real knives, why use real guns?

What is the difference here and some kid shooting a rap video on his cellphone and accidentally shooting his friend with an "unloaded" gun?

I think (and hope) we are headed in the direction of no real guns, or at least no blanks, ie no powder on set period, and probably could disable firing pins. A lot of John Wick muzzle flash is post production CGI, not blanks. Ironically it may be the insurance companies that drive that.

I am genuinely intrigued by the proposition that an actor rehearsing a period scene from prior to 1900 would have trigger discipline you want to see now. It's an interesting proposition. I think we are just two ships passing in the night on this entire issue.