1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. OT Alec Baldwin's criminal culpability (2023 Update)

OT Alec Baldwin's criminal culpability (2023 Update)

Many have referred to the fatal shooting on the Rust set as an "accident." It was ANYTHING BUT an accident. Accidents are events involving things completely out of your control like the wind blowing a tree over on your car. This "accident" was TOTALLY PREVENTABLE by following simple, well accepted, safety protocols, so it cannot be called an accident.

Some on the Left, but not many, are defending Alec Baldwin against criminally negligent behavior in the killing of Halyna Hutchins. Baldwin has a real exposure to a criminal charge because:

  1. He was unquestionably the person that pointed the weapon at Hutchins, a fundamental breach of firearm safety.
  2. He was unquestionably the person that pulled the trigger of the weapon, causing it to discharge a live round that killed Hutchins and wound Souza.
  3. He failed to follow basic, accepted firearm safety by failing to clear the weapon of any rounds prior to handling it.
  4. As Producer, he hired and supervised the people involved in ensuring firearm safety on the set, Halls and Reed.
  5. As Producer, he fired the crew that complained about two other firearm safety breaches and took no action to investigate, let alone resolve, their safety concerns.
  6. As Producer, he permitted unsafe firearm safety breaches to occur on the set, such as not allowing the gun in question to be used for target practice on the set. This necessarily involved the use of live rounds.

Baldwin's position as the film Producer places a strict responsibility on his shoulders for ensuring the safety of everyone working on his set. He failed this responsibility knowingly and deliberately which led directly to the death of Hutchkins, and is, thus culpable under New Mexico's involuntary manslaughter law. Here is a detailed legal analysis of Baldwin's criminal exposure by a practicing attorney that is also a certified firearms instructor:

formatting link

Reply to
Flyguy
Loading thread data ...

Flyguy wrote: ==========

It was ANYTHING BUT an accident. Accidents are events involving things completely out of your control

** " 1. Accident: an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."
** Totally false. He pointed it a no-one.
** False, the trigger was moved unintentionally.
** Not when acting in a movie you don't.
** False. Micromanaging staff is not his or anyone's job.
**False.
** False.

** False.

** Says nothing like the pile of absurd garbage you just made up.

...... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

It killed her, so it was pointed at her.

Of course in a long career of glorifying guns, he's killed a lot of people.

He was recently asked if he'd shoot guns in future movies, and he didn't answer.

Reply to
jlarkin

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: ================================== >

** Pedantic nonsense. Typical JL's false logic.
Reply to
Phil Allison

** Straw man: the def defines what an "accident" is - fool. Flyman made his one up.
** Yawnnnnnnnn.....

** I'm sure you do - inside your head.

** Yes. You don't know what happened either. All been published from the folk who were there.

..... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

This certainly WAS NOT "unexpected" when THREE people failed to clear the weapon. The first rule of firearm safety is that the gun IS LOADED!

LOL! If Baldwin pointed the weapon at no one, NO ONE would have been hurt or killed.

LOL! The trigger DID NOT move itself - that was done intentionally by Baldwin.

Firearm safety applies to ALL situations; movies ARE NOT excepted. When you declare yourself exempt from firearm safety "accidents" happen.

TRUE: managers, BY DEFINITION, manage people (regardless of what you think, which is bizarre).

TRUE: the previous crew WAS FIRED.

TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!

Again, TRUE. Managers bear ultimate responsibility for what happens in their domain, just like captains on a ship.

Says EVERYTHING you need to know about the legal aspects of the case by a PRACTICING ATTORNEY.

Reply to
Flyguy

** Yes it was - f*****ad.

** Total bullshit.
** More utter bullshit.
** Not relevant to what you wrote above.
** Pedantic drivel - from a really tedious pedant.
** FALSE FALSE FALSE !!!s...

** Complete bullshit.

No captains, no ships involved you LYING ASS.

** What YOU wrote was nothing like the above link - f*****ad.

Attorneys and their half baked opinions are a dime a dozen. Must be you have never dealt with any.

...... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 1 Nov 2021 01:24:53 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <slnfl5$vsa$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

CI30PqZpkbFk

Reply to
Edward Hernandez

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 1 Nov 2021 03:04:33 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <slnlg1$pjo$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

A4yGVm3UoKSP

Reply to
Edward Hernandez

Hey Phil, are you brain dead or what? How the hell is Hutchkins killed UNLESS Baldwin pointed the weapon at her? You need to go to remedial libtard training school - you can't make make remotely believable implausible arguments...

Reply to
Flyguy

John Doe wrote: ================

** Why so much f****ng bullshit ?

FOAD troll.

Reply to
Phil Allison

Flyguy wrote: ==============

** That term describes YOU to a T.

** Have a think about it - f****it.

But you need to look up the sequence of events first. You LAZY shit.

..... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

He met all his obligations by hiring the armorer. It's an unrealistic expectation that he should run around and do micro-inspections of all his employees' work.

That's a very low quality "legal analysis" which contains more than few conclusory inferences, from taking words out of context in the NM code to citing a case law that's not substantially applicable, in the sense of matching the substantive law.

In the real world, prosecutors assess the chances of conviction before starting in on a case. The chances of conviction in NM are nil, there will not be a charge.

Miss Fluffy Bunny, the armorer, is another story. She will be prosecuted and convicted, but her sentence will be suspended.

You will make life a lot easier for yourself if you avoid subject matter for which you have little qualification and ability to comprehend.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

I was going to make some pertinent comments, but it seems that Phil A has hit all the right notes. Note to flyguy: it helps to check "facts" from several points of view - then you will look much less like a dick

Reply to
David Eather

David Eather wrote: ===================

** LOL !!

...... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

No, flyguy always looks like a dick no matter what.

Reply to
Rick C

Life would have been A LOT EASIER for both Halyna and Baldwin if Baldwin had not f***ed up on so many fronts, but that ship has sailed.

Your statement: "prosecutors assess the chances of conviction before starting in on a case" shows just how ignorant you are. The can't possibly know what the "chances" are absent an investigation.

You ignore that Baldwin not only ignored safety complaints by his former crew, but that he also FIRED THEM for this transigence!

Are you an attorney? I doubt it. The analysis I posted IS by a practicing attorney that is highly experienced in firearm safety and training. I think I will accept his opinion before your ignorant one.

Reply to
Flyguy

I think that he's a used test equipment dealer that has to post under a phony name, so he doesn't lose any sales.

Reply to
Michael Terrell

I noticed the DEAFENING SILENCE from him since I asked him if he is an attorney, so that makes sense. I am not an attorney, either, which is why I posted the insight from an actual practicing attorney. At some point the prosecutors will give their opinion, the only one that counts.

Reply to
Flyguy

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.