Even if he did it on purpose. He wouldn’t face consequences.
That could very well be right
I don’t jog with my gun like you do so admittedly I’m not as much of an expert as you are but I have a friend who actually is a hunting guide.
His first job is the safety of the people he is guiding.
So if you’re looking for representation how do you know how to avoid those types and find the lawyers that want your cash and will actually do a good job?
There’s a lot of dangers in hunting. I suppose if he tells a client an animal is harmless and that client approaches the animal and gets his face ripped off, it’s your guide friend’s fault? Or is the onus on the client for not making sure it was a dangerous animal
I’m not saying you should ever assume a gun is empty and point it at someone without checking. What I am saying is that there should be a level of trust. If an expert on something you’re not, tells you it’s safe, there’s a point where you should be able to trust that person who’s doing a totally different job than yours
Well they all want your cash. But they work with the same judges and prosecutors every day. They’re not gonna play hardball with them and get on their bad side just to get you a little better deal. On the contrary… They’re gonna work more on getting YOU to accept their terms just to get it over with and move on to their next case
The judges are in on it too. Two guys, identical crimes. One goes up with a local lawyer and pleads not guilty and asks for a continuance, gets it. Another guy same situation but without a lawyer asks exact same thing gets told FU by the judge. Come back with a lawyer even tho you’re asking for same thing. They want everyone to make monetin their little town. And THIS is why it’s often no better bringing in a high priced lawyer from another county. They wanna keep the money in THEIR county
Not when it comes to a deadly weapon that can takes someone’s life
It’s amazing in the hunting analogy you think it’s more likely someone will walk up to an animal and get attacked vs accidentally shooting someone.
You are either purposely ignoring the point or you are just extremely dumb.
OK, so how do get the good ones who will actually keep you out of prison?
I’m suggesting that a person who is not responsible for making sure a gun isn’t loaded on a movie set, should not be held criminally responsible for making sure a gun isn’t load on a movie set and that the responsibility should fall on the hired expert who’s job it is to make sure a gun is safe and not loaded with live ammunition. It’s really not that hard to understand
1 Like
You are wrong. ‘I didn’t know the drugs were in my car’ because someone else packed it is not a defense. You can’t play ignorant as an actor. You are handling that firearm and should check it before you do anything with it, trust or not. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
This set was already flagged for being unsafe well before that incident. It was waiting to happen if someone was stupid enough to allow it by their own negligence. Baldwin was negligent and of course he’s going to try to cover up his own negligence about it after the fact. It was involuntary manslaughter if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, but criminally negligent homicide works too.
Of course the prosecutors effed it up so bad (haven’t read the story about what went wrong yet) that neither of those could have happened.
Are you sure about this? I wanna say this exact question was on my sister’s bar exam and the answer was the driver is NOT criminally liable because there was no intent. Intent matters in law
However, enough of you disagree with me on this, that I’ll assume I’m wrong if not legally, then ethically. I’d make a terrible judge. I’d hold liable the person responsible for making sure the gun wasn’t loaded. No one else and certainly not an actor
This is correct.
Drug possession requires intent - in this situation the question is whether the driver knew or should have known that the drugs were in his car. Just imagine if it didn’t - is a taxi/uber driver expected to pat down every customer for drugs.
I dealt with this exact situation in one case where we represented a driver for a rapper, and the cops found guns and drugs in the car. Prosecutors worked to establish evidence that it was well known that the rapper carried drugs and guns, while we worked to show that the drugs/guns were well concealed.
I think the disconnect here is that nunnehi is talking about this more in a morally responsible/civilly negligent sense and not criminal homicide. Should Baldwin have checked the gun? Probably - although the defense experts were planning to say that he didn’t have any responsibility to do so. However, from a legal standpoint, the analysis of whether his failure to do so rises to the level of criminal homicide, is a much higher bar, and one legal experts thought wasn’t clear and could go either way based on how the jury felt.
2 Likes
I’m not an expert in this, I just have some experience. I’m also not talking about first degree murder charges. What I’m saying is that the system is corrupt. They want local lawyers and those lawyers just want to plea and move onto the next case. I’m not saying they won’t try to get you a decent deal, but they have working relationships with the prosecutors and maybe they want the prosecutor to move more on another case, so they make a sub optimal deal on a different one, etc.
That’s maybe not the best example but it’s basically what Baldwin argued. Again, on a set you never ever ever point a weapon at anyone with any kind of ammo in it. Pleading ignorance and that he did nothing wrong doesn’t fly at all.
Here’s probably the best article about how the trial disintegrated:
From other articles I read, apparently the judge was trying to stick to a very strict timeline. She was pissed about the suppression of evidence knowing it would result in a retrial that would blow that out of the water. And she apparently wanted no part of it, dismissing it with prejudice.
The prosecutors (apparently many prosecutors handled this case) had deliberate misconduct violating Brady after the bullets were brought in. In one article, the person who first saw the bullets said they clearly didn’t match the bullets in the weapon that was fired. That doesn’t excuse suppressing it, but there are other factors that caused the judge to dismiss with prejudice.
Don’t expect the civil trials to go well for Baldwin if he doesn’t settle them first. He should have said I am not pointing the gun with you sitting behind the camera. He should have said it’s not appropriate to point the gun near you in any way. He should not have cocked the hammer at all. The whole situation is insane and should change a lot of regulations on movie sets in the future.
After reading a lot about this, actors are not allowed to touch the chamber, so what they’re told is ‘officially’ correct according to them. He still breached several set protocols actors are not ever supposed to breach, the biggest one being pointing a weapon at someone, so he’s still responsible in that regard. There were numerous on set errors that led to the tragedy and one of the biggest was him as a producer cutting corners to save money and put more in his own pocket.
Wait, so now you’re saying the actors are forbidden from checking if it’s loaded?
I don’t disagree with any of this. The issue though is whether that makes him liable for criminal homicide, which has a specific standard, and negligence or violation of safety protocols isn’t always enough.
Two notes:
-
He wasn’t charged as a producer, only as an actor (in the civil trials it’s based on the producer theory, but in the criminal trial they couldn’t even mention he was a producer).
-
The harm/risk has to be reasonably foreseeable, which IMO was going to be the big question. Did his failures make it reasonably foreseeable that someone would get shot. Prosecutions argument was that yes, since all guns should be considered live, that it’s reasonably foreseeable pointing it at someone could kill them. Defense’s argument was no, since the gun was checked multiple times and there was supposed to be no live ammo on set.
Do you think Baldwin should be subject to a higher standard than a less well-known/established actor that wasn’t also involved as a producer? The vast majority of actors show up on set and do what they’re told. If you want to argue that Alec Baldwin is not the vast majority of actors, and specifically had a hand as a producer that made everything less safe, then OK, but I still think that’s a tougher hill to climb than just “he was 100% wrong in even pointing the gun”.
This is hopefully true.
Maybe chill a little on responses like this
When some reading led you to this
2 Likes