Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun on Set, Killing Cinematographer

[Kirby101]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sp...6bbbb56f&ei=29

Ok this lady just stepped down. Turns out she is a republican serving in the New Mexico gov as a state representative. Can we all agree this is a total farce now?

Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor in the “Rust” case, resigned on Tuesday, saying she did not want questions about her dual roles as a legislator and prosecutor to “cloud” the issues

Did I not read that serving in both positions is against the law in NM?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Sounds like she's getting out before it becomes a car wreck

[JBatmanFan05]

Definitely a blow to the prosecution (at least publicity-wise), but if, I repeat if, this case ever makes to trial, there is still a probably a somewhat credible factual basis for invol man (since it's pretty open ended). Whether the jury would agree or not, we of course don't know.

[Sandy Hausler]

Sounds like she's getting out before it becomes a car wreck

Well maybe, but there actually is a significant legal problem. But for the that issue (not being able to be a prosecutor and a legislator at the same time), I think she would have seen the case through. But I could be wrong.

I guess the impetus of the case is publicity. There may be negligence in this case -- though whose is the question -- but I can't see why anyone thinks Alec Baldwin should be held responsible.

[JBatmanFan05]

A very different case, the Michigan high school shooter case, that further illustrates just how far invol man stretches as far as covering conduct (conduct that I'm sure some out there might think it shouldn't cover, because we have civil liability or etc):

The parents of a teenager who killed four students at a Michigan high school can face trial for involuntary manslaughter, the state appeals court said Thursday in a groundbreaking case of criminal responsibility for the acts of a child.

The murders would not have happened if the parents hadn't purchased a gun for Ethan Crumbley or if they had taken him home from Oxford High School on the day of the shooting, when staff became alarmed about his extreme drawings, the appeals court said.

The court noted that the legal threshold at this stage of the case is fairly low under Michigan law.

"Whether a jury actually finds that causation has been proven after a full trial, where the record will almost surely be more expansive — including evidence produced by defendants — is an issue separate from what we decide today," the court said in a 3-0 opinion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oxford-...ichigan-court/

[WebLurker]

I guess the impetus of the case is publicity. There may be negligence in this case -- though whose is the question -- but I can't see why anyone thinks Alec Baldwin should be held responsible.

Because he was the one who chose to wave the gun around recklessly in the first place and was the one to actually pull the trigger?

(It's up to the court to decide guilt or innocence r.e. responsibility, but I don't get why anyone is baffled that Baldwin is going to court over it in the first place.)

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Because he was the one who chose to wave the gun around recklessly in the first place and was the one to actually pull the trigger?

(It's up to the court to decide guilt or innocence r.e. responsibility, but I don't get why anyone is baffled that Baldwin is going to court over it in the first place.)

He was told it was essentially a safe gun with blank.

[Kirby101]

Because he was the one who chose to wave the gun around recklessly in the first place and was the one to actually pull the trigger?

(It's up to the court to decide guilt or innocence r.e. responsibility, but I don't get why anyone is baffled that Baldwin is going to court over it in the first place.)

This is simple not true. The director asked him to pick up the gun and point it at the camera. You might think he is responsible, but at least argue the facts and not make things up.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

This is simple not true. The director asked him to pick up the gun and point it at the camera. You might think he is responsible, but at least argue the facts and not make things up.

Even if Baldwin waved around a blank gun , its basically telling him from the COLD GUN on set that its safe to do that with. A lot of people think all actors check guns handed to them that is told are safe. But as were learning a number of them don't.

[Brian B]

A very different case, the Michigan high school shooter case, that further illustrates just how far invol man stretches as far as covering conduct (conduct that I'm sure some out there might think it shouldn't cover, because we have civil liability or etc):

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oxford-...ichigan-court/

That case is NOT at all analogous, but it does go to show you what real involuntary manslaughter ought to look like.

What happened on the Rust set is a terrible accident, no doubt caused by someone’s or a couple people’s negligence, but it was just a fatal workplace accident.

Ethan Crumbley, the shooter in Oxford, MI, is a mass murderer. He intentionally murdered four people and shot several more. He committed mass murder at a high school with a gun and ammunition his parents bought him, a child too young to even drive. Not only did they buy him this gun, they knowingly and recklessly ignored that their son is either a schizophrenic or someone suffering from major bipolar disorder, who needed to be medicated and probably hospitalized. These parents decided that what their child, who was actively suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations, needed was not medical treatment, but a 9mm semiautomatic with ammo. They decided that he needed this despite being told multiple times by the school administration about their child’s condition. Following the shooting, rather than face the consequences of their actions, they chose to flee arrest.

If your child needs thorzaine and perhaps a straitjacket, a loaded 9mm semiautomatic is not a substitute for medical care.

Parents have legal obligations, civil and criminal, if they recklessly neglect their child’s care, and actively promote and approve of their child’s violent threats and actions against other human beings. They knew the voices in their kid’s head told him to kill his classmates and others. It was documented. What do they do? They basically put a loaded gun in the kid’s hands and literally insisted he be sent back to class.

In no way at all does the Rust set accident resemble what happened in Oxford.

[JBatmanFan05]

That case is NOT at all analogous, but it does go to show you what real involuntary manslaughter ought to look like.

What happened on the Rust set is a terrible accident, no doubt caused by someone’s or a couple people’s negligence, but it was just a fatal workplace accident.

Never said it was analogous, in fact I basically said it isn't. But the "groundbreaking" Mich case does illustrate just how far invol man stretches as far as covering conduct.

"Fatal workplace accident" or not, no court is yet saying Alec can't be validly indicted/charged with invol man. Because invol man is broader than some realize.

[Brian B]

Never said it was analogous, in fact I basically said it isn't. But the "groundbreaking" case does illustrate just how far invol man stretches as far as covering conduct.

"Fatal workplace accident" accident or not, no court is yet saying Alec can't be validly indicted/charged with invol man. Because invol man is broader than some realize.

Yes, you absolutely said they were different situations. I wanted to quantify just how different the two situations are.

As for Baldwin, the prosecution needs to drop that manslaughter charge. The prosecution’s case has already been demolished by Baldwin’s defense, deservedly. If it goes to trial, the prosecutor’s office is just going to be further embarrassed.

— The prosecution in a news interview was basically surprised at the fact the assistant director, who they cut a deal with, admits he is the person who declared the gun “cold.” The prosecutors look on that interview like they had no idea that was the case. If the prosecutor’s proceed to trial, expect Baldwin AND the armorer to walk.

— The prosecution had to drop the most serious charge, an enhanced firearms charge, because the law did not even exist at the time the shooting happened.
— — Baldwin’s defense was going to demand the judge order the enhanced firearm charge get dropped, or face all sorts of appeals and complaints against the prosecution’s office for its blatant unconstitutionality in charging with a law that didn’t exist at the time the supposed crime happened.
— — The prosecutor’s office dropped the charge before the judge ordered the prosecution do so, because they knew they were beat, hard.

— Baldwin’s defense forced the acting special prosecutor to step down, because of state and federal constitutional laws separating the executive from the legislative branches, as the acting special prosecutor is also a state legislator.
— — This special prosecutor once again backed off by resigning, by quitting, before the judge or a higher court judge ordered the special prosecutor off the case. You don’t quit when you’re winning.

— Baldwin’s defense has said the gun that Baldwin supposedly fired has been lost by the prosecutor’s office.
— — After stonewalling for about a week, the prosecutor’s office has finally admitted that the gun was damaged by FBI testing. What damage means is not clear. The prosecutor says it’s not so damaged that it can’t be used as evidence. The defense says it is basically destroyed and unusable as evidence. It seems the prosecution has not even turned the item over to the defense for examination in discovery, it is so damaged.
— — — This indicates Baldwin’s defense might not even need to argue that it wasn’t his job to check the gun. It might fall on the prosecution to prove with physical evidence, that does not exist, that Baldwin shot the gun. I’ll say that in more plain English. It seems the prosecutor can’t prove with physical evidence Baldwin even shot the gun.

This case is going just like I and other people who actually read the news have said. The case against Baldwin is very, very, VERY weak. I didn’t even think it was this weak.

Baldwin will never do time for this. I doubt he even gets a felony conviction. Indeed, I say after appeals and whatnot, Baldwin won’t even be convicted let alone do time. It’s been clear from the start, there is no case against Baldwin.

If the prosecution had not have blown it so hard, they may have had a case against the assistant director, but that ship sailed with the plea deal they gave the guy.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

They wanted their names in the press. What looks better on the resume....some no named producer or actor Alec Baldwin. They went full scale on him because they all thought of the resume and fame of busting a left winger liberal.

I honestly hope Baldwin files a Civil case against the state or county after it.

[WebLurker]

As for Baldwin, the prosecution needs to drop that manslaughter charge. The prosecution’s case has already been demolished by Baldwin’s defense, deservedly. If it goes to trial, the prosecutor’s office is just going to be further embarrassed.

Baldwin's "defense" boils down to "I did not pull the trigger" (e.g. the gun just went off on its own accord) and "I can't be held responsible because I wasn't supposed to double-check the gun and/or witness it being check before waving it around." So far as the former goes, we know that's not true. So far as the latter goes, the prosecution would seem to need to prove that either the rules did require him to check or observe in person or that it's criminally negligent that that check wasn't in place (while other actor statements aren't testimony, we do know from several that the gun not being checked before Baldwin started using it is a "no no," so we'll have to see how that pans out once the trial gets started).

If Baldwin is innocent under the law, he should be found as such, but the man accidentally killed someone; that shouldn't just be swept under the rug without his day in court.

[numberthirty]

Baldwin's "defense" boils down to "I did not pull the trigger" (e.g. the gun just went off on its own accord) and "I can't be held responsible because I wasn't supposed to double-check the gun and/or witness it being check before waving it around." So far as the former goes, we know that's not true. So far as the latter goes, the prosecution would seem to need to prove that either the rules did require him to check or observe in person or that it's criminally negligent that that check wasn't in place (while other actor statements aren't testimony, we do know from several that the gun not being checked before Baldwin started using it is a "no no," so we'll have to see how that pans out once the trial gets started).

If Baldwin is innocent under the law, he should be found as such, but the man accidentally killed someone; that shouldn't just be swept under the rug without his day in court.

One guy's take...

First off, you have the pretty obvious issue when it comes to what has actually come out of Baldwin's mouth.

You have a bunch of folks in this thread with the idea that the Assistant Director handed Baldwin the gun and said it was cold.

If that is the case?

Why is Baldwin(7:35 forward...Again very clearly at 8:05...) saying that it was the armorer?