The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The New Mexico Involuntary Manslaughter Prosecution of Alec Baldwin
New Mexico law is more pro-defendant in such cases than the laws of many other states.
Since Baldwin has been re-indicted for fatally shooting a cinematographer while filming a Western, Rust, I thought I'd reprise some observations about New Mexico law that I posed a year ago, when the issue was last in the news.
Under New Mexico law, see State v. Skippings (N.M. 2011),
[I]nvoluntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing that consists of an "unlawful killing of a human being without malice … committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection." We have interpreted this statutory scheme to encompass unintentional killings that result due to "1) the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony [that causes death]; 2) the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner; or 3) the commission of a lawful act that might produce death without due caution and circumspection."
What's more, under New Mexico law, all three varieties of involuntary manslaughter require a showing of criminal negligence. And this isn't just the normal negligence, of the sort that we're familiar with from civil cases, which focuses on what an objectively reasonable person would have done. Nor is it gross negligence, which suffices for involuntary manslaughter in many states. Rather, it's "willful disregard of the rights or safety of others," based on "subjective knowledge 'of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions'":
In New Mexico, "the State must show at least criminal negligence to convict a criminal defendant of involuntary manslaughter." Because involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing, we only attach felony liability where the actor has behaved with the requisite mens rea. This Court has made clear that the criminal negligence standard applies to all three categories of involuntary manslaughter. Criminal negligence exists where the defendant "act[s] with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger[s] any person or property." We also require that the defendant must possess subjective knowledge "of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions."
Say, then, that the prosecution can show that Baldwin pointed the gun at the cinematographer (Halyna Hutchins) and pulled the trigger, but carelessly believed (without checking this for himself) that it was unloaded, because he trusted that the production's armorer made sure the gun was unloaded.
It wouldn't be enough to show that Baldwin was careless, negligent, lacked due caution in the ordinary sense of the word—or even that he was acting extremely foolishly in not recognizing the risk of pointing a gun at someone without personally checking that it was unloaded. It wouldn't be enough to show that any reasonable gun owner would have performed such a personal check, rather than relying on the assumption that the armorer would have done it.
The prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was subjectively aware of the danger: that he actually thought about the possibility that the gun might be loaded, and proceeded to point it and pull the trigger despite that. That's much harder than just to show carelessness, or even gross carelessness, though of course much depends on what evidence the prosecution has gathered. (Here, by the way, is what appears to be a transcript of the June 11, 2022 police interview of Baldwin, though of course the evidence at trial might be different, and the jury may believe or disbelieve various statements.)
Again, in other states, the law might define "criminal negligence" as mere "gross negligence," and focus solely on the objective reasonableness of the defendant's actions. But in New Mexico, Skippings tells us that proof of subjective consciousness of risk is required.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A jury may buy these arguments. But there's plenty of law that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without personally knowing the gun is unloaded is reckless.
Discussed here:
https://twitter.com/dilanesper/status/1749136507280204128
You do realize movies are make believe?? Almost everything on a movie set is phony. So actors aren’t actually having sex in movies while they are actually kissing…I guess it’s hard for some people to keep track of what is real and what is phony.
The guns were real. Baldwin knew it.
You're missing the point of the article. "Reckless" is not the legal standard in this case. Yes, it was reckless. Even negligent. New Mexico law sets a higher standard.
And that's not an issue for the jury to decide - that's the judge's call.
Under New Mexico law, pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without personally verifying the gun is unloaded meets their legal standard of recklessness.
So it would be manifestly erroneous for a judge to dismiss this prosecution.
Then in NM, you can't make movies with gunfire unless you either violate this law or violate occupational safety rules. The chain of experts the dangerous weapon is entrusted to must be trusted, or the entire scheme of occupational safety falls apart. Had Baldwin checked the loads himself, the gun would've then had to have been deemed unready and put again thru the same procedure previously used on it -- leaving Baldwin in exactly the same position when the gun is returned to his hands. What are they supposed to do, play hot potato with it forever?
And again, virtually all of that caselaw involves situations where there was a random gun lying around somewhere that someone picked up (or was handed) and fired, claiming he didn't realize it was loaded. That's just a different fact pattern than here.
And there's this thing called legal rules, where cases are not limited to their facts and announce general rules that apply to other facts. Something I am sure you realize when you are in court but sometimes pretend doesn't exist when you are on the Internet.
And again, virtually all of that caselaw involves situations where there was a random gun lying around somewhere that someone picked up (or was handed) and fired, claiming he didn’t realize it was loaded. That’s just a different fact pattern than here.
Uh...Baldwin was handed a firearm (by an assistant director, not the armor, who wasn't even allowed on the set at the time) that he didn't realize was loaded...because he never bothered to check whether it was or not. Yeah, that's a totally different pattern.
And he didn't check it because he's not allowed to check it and then go thru with his rehearsal.
If you did discuss anything on twitter, your link doesn't go to that discussion. All that appears is the following:
Westlaw has no record of an opinion issued by the New Mexico Supreme Court issued between 1/1/2012 and 12/13/2012 where the defendant's name was Young, where "negligent homicide" was discussed, or where an "unloaded" firearm were discussed.
The closest case I see is a 2021 opinion of the Court of Appeals of New Mexico Court at 495 P.3d 1189. There, the defendant was charged with second-degree murder, and asked for a lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. He testified that he saw another person pick up the gun and unload a live round, leaving him with the impression that the magazine had been removed as well. Joking, he pointed the gun at a friend and pulled the trigger, "expecting a click, but got a bang." The court agreed that a rational jury could have found that he lacked the intent necessary for murder, but was criminally negligent.
I don't find those facts or that procedural posture to provide a compelling argument. Seeing that a gun was loaded because a real bullet fell out of it in front of you, contemplating whether it was loaded or not, and then not checking to see if was truly unloaded is one fact scenario. Thinking that you are on a set where a professional has ensured that no gun is loaded with real bullets, and are instead loaded for effects bullets, is another fact scenario entirely.
Scroll down. There's a bunch of cases.
And of course you can distinguish anything you want. But cases stand for general rules in a common law legal system.
I do think the Young case tends to undermine Prof. Volokh's claim (which is otherwise fairly reasonable from the general formulation) that a sincere but unreasonable subjective belief that the gun was unloaded would be a valid defense.
Except that Prof. Volokh doesn't say that an unreasonable subjective belief is a valid defense. That isn't quite the standard.
Prof. Volokh says that the prosecution must prove "that he actually thought about the possibility that the gun might be loaded." That is a fair representation of the standard.
Young follows that standard. Under the facts that the court was indulging*, the defendant was subjectively aware of facts that did cause him to actively contemplate the risk that the gun might be loaded. When he saw a bullet come out of the gun (and didn't see the magazine come out) he subjectively knew facts about the gun, separate from it simply being a gun, that caused him to consciously consider the danger that it was loaded, and he disregarded that danger.
*=Two juries found that there was no accident, the defendant meant to shoot the victim.
And yet Baldwin who has said he really doesn't know anything about guns, especially replicas of antique pistols, and hired someone to ensure to ensure safety on the set with guns used by people unfamiliar with them.
I actually am not much of a Baldwin fan, although I certainly enjoyed some of his movies, but the real issue is what's the right thing legally?
I don't think Baldwin had any intent to do any harm on that day, and shouldn't be prosecuted because he not only didn't have any intent but thought he had taken reasonable steps to make sure accidents wouldn't happen.
The right thing legally is if you don't know about guns, don't pick one up and point it at someone and pull the trigger.
Bear in mind, the reason why there were legal guns in this production in the first place was almost certainly because Baldwin, like many stars, gets a macho thrill from using real guns rather than fake ones and special effects.
I haven't seen any evidence of that, in fact I don't think Baldwin had any involvement in picking the guns or prepping them, or knew much about them.
Those that do know somewhat about guns know that period single action revolvers are notorious for accidental discharges, and they don't make them any more because they are so unreliable.
But if you have any actual information about Baldwin's state of mind or what his actual involvement was in selecting or prepping the guns please share it.
I don’t think Baldwin had any intent to do any harm on that day, and shouldn’t be prosecuted because he not only didn’t have any intent but thought he had taken reasonable steps to make sure accidents wouldn’t happen.
That is where I part ways. He had a rifle in his hand, not a lead pipe or a bat. Basic gun instruction = you check the chamber and make sure the damned safety is on.
I think he should be prosecuted, at the very least. Given the circumstances, there is an argument to be made for leniency in the penalty. But Baldwin did kill someone. That is an undisputed objective fact. That is manslaughter.
And BTW, what has Baldwin personally done to assist the family of Halyna Hutchins (the woman he killed); specifically, her child? That would tell me a lot.
I think it's the reasonable inference. Remember, CGI exists.
There isn't any rule that says that we have to have an admission from Baldwin to convict him. Most criminals lie about their mens rea. The issue is that only a complete imbecile thinks he can point a gun at a cinematographer and pull the trigger and there's no risk that there might be a bullet in there.
Not an imbcile, just someone who trusts the safety procedures that have been adopted -- which are not the same safety procedures one would use in real life. In a show, you must trust the experts that the props are safe, because they're the experts and following established procedures; anything you could do as less than the expert could only make the props less safe.
And this is not true only in a show. An airline pilot must trust the instruments to tell the safety of conditions, and not hirself get out and under the hood to check the equipment. There are specialists for that, and just because you're the last one handling the machine doesn't mean you should check it again.
Same with an X-ray technician. Or a construction worker. Or anybody else handling some specialized equipment that could injure someone. You have people whose job it is to assure the equipment does what it's supposed to in your hands; you're not supposed to second-guess them, you're just supposed to do your own part safely. And it doesn't matter whether on your own time, with your own equipment that you might work on, you know what to do -- and that includes handling guns. Your gun, your own time, check it. A prop in a movie you're acting in, don't check it, just act.
"An airline pilot must trust the instruments to tell the safety of conditions, and not hirself get out and under the hood to check the equipment."
You might want to explore the concept of 'preflight the airplane'.
That's exactly what I had in mind. There are certain things the pilot is supposed to do, and others handled by mechanics, and never the twain shall meet.
Then nobody can be an actor. An actor is someone who pretends. Their role is not to know anything about what the situation would be if it were the real thing, their role is to pretend to know about the situation as if it were the real thing.
I don’t think Baldwin had any intent to do any harm on that day, and shouldn’t be prosecuted because he not only didn’t have any intent but thought he had taken reasonable steps to make sure accidents wouldn’t happen.
Dog help me, but I’m actually going to have to side with Esper on this one. “Intent to do harm” is not a requirement, nor did he take the single most basic “reasonable step” to make sure he didn’t shoot someone…namely, verify the loaded/unloaded state of the weapon before aiming it at someone. Hiring others to also perform such checks is an auxiliary safety measure, and does NOT eliminate that responsibility on the part of the individual wielding the weapon, on whom it primarily falls.
And given the number of films Baldwin has been involved with that involved handling firearms, where safety training is mandatory for those doing said handling...as well as his knowledge of the multiple problems with gun safety issues that had already happened on that set...the, “Gee, he just didn’t know nothin’ ’bout guns” argument doesn’t fly either.
And I'm sure his safety training said, when you're handed a gun that you've been told has been thru the established procedures, you're not allowed to personally handle the loads.
I just don’t see it. Why would anyone on a movie set believe a gun is loaded with a live round??
Maybe, when this prosecution is complete, we will finally have solved the mystery of who pulled Alec Baldwin's trigger when Alec Baldwin maimed & murdered those poor women. Hopefully we will see real justice, not Hollywood justice where one goes on TV and cries crocodile tears for the camera.
There are 4 simple and basic rules to gun safety, #1 is every gun is always loaded. #2, don't point gun at something you are not willing to destroy. #3 is be sure of your target, and what is behind it. #4 is to keep your booger-hook off the bang switch until ready to shoot. Alec Baldwin failed to follow at least three of those rules when Alec Baldwin recklessly killed.
Moreover, Baldwin has appeared in many movies that used guns. Presumably the prosecution has contacted the armorers from those prior movies and obtained testimony that Baldwin attended training where the 4 rules of guns safety were presented and where he was advised that gun safety is non-delegable. At least, I know that's what I would do if I were handling the prosecution in this case.
Right. Further, there's evidence this "armorer" was a typical Hollywood dilletante, more concerned with social media photos than gun safety, and had caused problems on the sets of other movies she worked on. And there's evidence Baldwin may not even have been told by the armorer that the gun was safe.
Obviously the jury could get star-struck and acquit him. But I suspect this is a much stronger case than people are giving it credit for.
None of you, despite your arrogant claims, have bothered to consider why the normal rules of gun safety might not be as cut and dry on a film set as they are to everyday use.
That is where you are wrong. Gun safety is really as simple as the 4 rules laid out above. When murdering Alec Baldwin failed to follow those simple rules, he murdered one and maimed another. Location does not matter, be it Navy Seals about to bust a cap in a terrorist's skull, cops playing slap & tickle in their locker room, or murdering Alec Baldwin on a movie set where he was responsible for providing a safe environment as one of the producers as well as an actor.
Well, you had a chance to think about your answer and clearly you decided against doing so. Allow me to ask a guiding question so that you may try again:
Do firearms on film sets experience a binary existence of either being loaded with real bullets or not?
Before responding again, please actually think about your answer first.
It really is as simple as see rule #1 above. It would appear that you cannot understand that simple rule, therefore I strongly recommend that you do not handle any firearms. I would hate for you to become a killer, too . . . just like murdering Alec Baldwin.
Always means always. You can google it.
How embarrassing for you that you know so little about a topic you're so sure of.
Firearms on film sets are not simply 'loaded' or 'unloaded' as they are for the rest of us.
Next time you're given a chance to think about your response before looking like an idiot, I suggest you do so.
We are discussing a situation where basic firearm safety rules were not followed, on a movie set. Because those rules were not followed, Alec Baldwin murdered and maimed two women. Now you are here, seeking some sort of an exception to basic firearm safety rules for movie sets, despite Alec Baldwin killing and maiming due to exceptions to the basic firearm safety rules on a movie set. You so badly want there to be some sort of exception to basic firearm safety rules on a movie wet, that you have resorted to calling me names because you cannot form a proper argument to support why you want to have exceptions to basic firearm safety rules despite those exceptions in the case at hand leading to Alec Baldwin maiming and killing and crying on TV about how tough it was for him.
I've actually explained to you, after your failure to recognize the answer for yourself, precisely why your alleged "basic firearm safety rules" do not apply in the same manner on a film set as they do for normal situations.
The problem is that you're too dumb to realize it, even when the information is directly presented to you.
Maybe you should actually educate yourself on industry procedures before commenting any further.
We know that some firearm safety rule was violated by somebody. But it's clear to me that that somebody was not the actor.
Sorry, but all those rules are superseded by the rule of occupational safety, which is to follow the established procedure. And the established procedure does not include having the actors check the loads!
Not only that, but rules 2-4 are superseded by the rule of acting, which is that you do whatever you have to do to make it look like you're doing the real thing. That may include pointing a gun and pulling the trigger that a fictitious person you're pretending to be intends to shoot at someone.
Well, the guy who gave him a loaded gun seemed to think there was nothing unusual about it.
But yes, I agree with you that he had no reason to suspect that the gun was loaded, given it was a movie set.
It wasn't a "guy." The armorer was a tatted up degenerate young girl.
Do you know something, or are you just disparaging a young woman with tattoos?
Actually she was a nepo baby like George W Bush and Lizard Cheney…what could go wrong??? 😉
It wasn’t a “guy.” The armorer was a tatted up degenerate young girl.
Actually, it was a guy who handed Baldwin the firearm. It was a male assistant director (against whom firearms safety violation complaints had previous been lodged during production of a film for Hulu) who did that, not the young female armorer, because she wasn't even allowed on that set due to Covid protocols that were implemented for the production.
From the transcript, it's odd. It's like Baldwin thought there would basically never be a real live round on site.
I think examination of his past movies may be useful, to see if live rounds were ever used.
Live rounds are supposed to never be on set.
I agree with you that he had no reason to suspect that the gun was loaded
You're kidding...right? The very first rule of firearms safety (which Baldwin has certainly had training in given his long history of involvement in movies where they were used) is "All guns are loaded". Add to that the fact that multiple firearms safety issues had already occurred on the set previously, with much of the crew threatening to walk off the set because of them, and there is AMPLE reason to be extra cautious when handling a real firearm, no matter what the armorer (whom you already have reason to believe is incompetent) has assured you of.
no matter what the armorer (whom you already have reason to believe is incompetent) has assured you of.
Self-correction: The armorer hadn't assured Baldwin of anything, as she wasn't even allowed on the church set at the time due to Covid protocols. It was an assistant director who gave Baldwin the firearm and told him it was "cold", without having bothered to check it. So it changed hands at least twice, with neither recipient bothering to perform even the most basic safety check.
I believe the set had multiple unsafe gun events, with live ammo and people walked off the project. However, I will wait until it is stated in court.
Google the armorer’s name—she’s a nepo baby that was careless and irresponsible in the year leading up to the tragedy.
Because any one with a smidgen of firearms safety training treats every firearm as loaded until you verify that it is not. That takes only seconds.
And then what happens on site of the movie rehearsal after "you" (the actor) "verify that it is not loaded"? The condition you leave the gun in is then unready and it has to go back to the armorer! The actor is not supposed to check these things.
The person in possession of the gun has sole and full ultimate responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the gun.
doesnt matter how many professionals or others told the person that gun was either unloaded or loaded only with blanks. That ultimate authority remains with the person in physical possession of the gun.
Joe_dallas: That's a good argument for why it's negligent to rely on the armorer. But that's not enough under New Mexico law -- the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin "possess[ed] subjective knowledge 'of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions.'"
All movie shoots that have guns use an armorer. Most armorers require actors that use guns on set to attend training. Baldwin has previously been in movies that have guns. If the prosecution has contacted armorers from other movies in which Baldwin was an actor, the prosecution may have testimony that Baldwin knows the four rules of guns safety and knows why rule #1 (treat all guns as if they are loaded) exists. If Baldwin knows rule #1 and why it exists, then he has subjective knowledge that pointing a gun at another human (and putting his finger on the trigger) exposes the target to unnecessary risk.
I’m not sure of his precise point, but my understanding of what Prof Volokh is saying is that it’s the subjective knowledge of risk -and- the willful disregard of rights or safety, which then amounts to an act of awareness or consciousness. One’s awareness is hard to prove from the outside, and even the defendant himself might have a hard time judging that (and of course would have a strong benefit to saying that it wasn’t).
Are you speaking based on actual firsthand knowledge here of how movie sets and armorers work? Or are you just being an Internet commenter?
I am basing my comments off interviews of armorers (made in the weeks/months following Baldwin's shooting) and actors (again, made in the weeks following the shooting) about how movie productions handle firearms on sets. For examples, Google "George Clooney gun safety on set" and articles in The Atlantic "Atlantic gun safety on set". I am a participant on various gun web sites that have comments, and have read additional comments from movie crew (riggers, audio engineers, etc.) regarding handling of firearms on sets. I live in Southern California in a small city where many of my friends and acquaintances are involved in movie/TV productions (artists, producers, musicians) and have spoken with them about gun safety on sets. I also have used guns since I was about 6 and received professional training on gun safety since I was about 10.
I have extensive first hand knowledge about gun safety and extensive second hand knowledge from multiple sources familiar with gun safety on sets.
Cars are very dangerous, does an actor have to do a safety inspection of a car in which it’s a very simple shot when the stunt driver will be doing what is seen in the movie??
The trouble is that too many commenters have experience handling guns on their own, and not with how occupational safety works. So they apply what they know about "gun safety" inappropriately to an occupational situation where those rules don't mean squat.
Prof. Volokh:
Yes, that's the mental state, but the jury can infer it. Indeed, the caselaw is just full of cases from various jurisdictions where juries made that exact inference-- that because they pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without knowing that the gun was unloaded, they consciously disregarded the risk that it was loaded. It, indeed, seems like the natural conclusion to draw; you have to make rather solicitous assumptions about Baldwin's stupidity to conclude he wasn't aware of this risk.
"the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin “possess[ed] subjective knowledge 'of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions.'"
Baldwin admitted that he knew it was dangerous:
"I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Never."
“the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin possess[ed] subjective knowledge ‘of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions.'”
It's pretty difficult to argue with a straight face that ANYONE with an above-room temperature IQ doesn't possess subjective knowledge of the danger of aiming a gun at someone...not to mention pulling either the trigger or the hammer...when one has not verified that the weapon is not loaded. Add to that Baldwin's long history of involvement in movies that involved firearms handling, and the safety training he almost certainly has had because of that, and the, "I didn't know that was dangerous!" argument is beyond laughable (or would be had the results not been so tragic).
It would be negligent to not rely on the armorer. This is basic occupational safety. It doesn't matter what the rules of gun safety are for someone handling hir own gun, or someone's gun on the range. This is a very specific occupational situation where standard procedures are to be followed that supersede the rules an individual would be expected to follow on hir own time.
No, sorry, as in myriad other occupational situations, the last person in possession of the item is not allowed to go thru operations checking the previously assured safety of the item. The surgeon is not supposed to check the sterility of the instruments s/he's handling. The nurse is allowed only to check what the drug's label says, and is not to go back and verify its manufacturing procedures.
Baldwin would not have been allowed to check the loads in that gun and then use it on site. Had he checked the loads, he would've been chastised and had to send it back for reloading by the person whose job it was to do so.
A widely publicized case in Massachusetts involved a man who punched the referee of his son's hockey game. The referee fell down, hit his head, and died. The puncher was convicted of manslaughter. If subjective intent mattered he might have been acquitted absent proof he thought a punch could kill a grown man.
Search keywords: hockey dad manslaughter.
You know Massachusetts and New Mexico are different states, right?
Do you have proof of that?
Query, why isn't the person who managed the set and gave him a loaded gun responsible, too? That seems worse than his pulling the trigger on what he was assuming was an empty gun.
Because Baldwin is a famous actor and that other person is not.
Prosecutor gets no pub for indicting some schnook.
The armorer and Baldwin were both charged with murder originally. Those charges were dropped against Baldwin. Presumably the armorer is still being tried for the more serious charge. But as Bob notes, the armorer is not a famous actor, so the status of that case doesn't make the news.
According to USA Today in August, trial set for late this year.
Its involuntary manslaughter, not murder.
Query, why isn’t the person who managed the set and gave him a loaded gun responsible, too?
Who said the armor doesn't also share some responsibility?
That seems worse than his pulling the trigger on what he was assuming was an empty gun.
It is difficult to overstate the ridiculousness of that ass-backward assertion. Aiming a firearm at someone and pulling the trigger/hammer is bad enough. Doing so without bothering to verify that the weapon is not loaded...for which the handler and nobody else has the primary responsibility...is far worse than the incompetence of the armorer.
No, sorry, in a show those responsibilities are reversed. If the shot requires pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger, that's what you do. And if you're the mere handler of the prop, you're not supposed to check its safety, because, being the non-expert, you could only render it less safe.
From what I’ve read, armorers on a movie set don’t want the talent to do things a normal gun owner would, like checking to see if the gun is loaded. They prefer to hand them the gun right before the beginning of filming a scene, and take it back as soon as the director yells “cut”.
On the flip side armorers will typically hand the gun to the actor for a scene, then take it back immediately afterwards. Baldwin was essentially playing/practicing with the gun while waiting to shoot. Not something that an experienced armorer would tolerate - unless maybe they were signing their paycheck.
Wasn't she barred from set due to COVID?
I can understand this piece in a vacuum but in context it's more than a bit odd.
What you're calling "playing/practicing" is in the industry called "rehearsing".
Unsurprisingly, gun enthusiasts on this blog sympathize with the armorer. Fellow-feeling, apparently.
Blaming Baldwin may be an irrational way to mitigate the armorer's responsibility. But VC commenters demonstrate paradoxical insight. Hyper-rationalist legal arguments also invite, and can at times even advantage, irrationality.
If the basis of decision were experience—instead of the axioms and syllogisms of the rationalist—irrational arguments would never get a chance to pretend some twisted path of reasoning leads toward legitimacy.
"gun enthusiasts on this blog sympathize with the armorer. Fellow-feeling, apparently."
No one here is sympathizing with the armorer. So other than your comment is a complete fantasy with no basis in fact, it's a great comment.
And it is quite possible that both are guilty of some form of manslaughter or homicide.
Stephen, I sympathize with the victim and don't sympathize one bit with Baldwin, because I actually value human life and don't think Hollywood types should play with real guns and bullets on movie sets just because it makes them feel badass.
The armorer by all accounts did an awful job, but she also didn't pull the trigger. Baldwin did, and it would be entirely just if he faces prosecution.
"..don’t think Hollywood types should play with real guns and bullets on movie sets just because it makes them feel badass."
That's a wonderful fantasy you've constructed. Can you think of any other reason real guns would be used as props? Reasons not based on your obvious bias, for example?
I think that IS the real reason. Remember, we do have CGI and if it can do the stuff it does in the Star Wars prequels, it can simulate gunfire.
Which comments did you characterize as "gun enthusiasts on this blog [who] sympathize with the armorer"? I missed the "paradoxical insight [of] Hyper-rationalist legal arguments."
You assume too much, Lathrop. That armorer was an idiot of epic proportions if even half the stories about her actions on set are true, and she likely deserves a separate trial. Her negligence does not absolve murdering Alec Baldwin from responsibility for killing and maiming those innocent women. Unlike you, I won’t speak for others; my dislike of Alec Baldwin the murderer, is due to his arrogance and previous history and comments against guns and gun laws while making a healthy living using guns. He has used guns for 40ish years, I expect he has been trained and the extent of that training should be easily found out in discovery.
Fyathyrio, what costs you credibility is your dogmatic reliance that rules once learned will govern behavior in all cases. Experience teaches not only that it is not so, but also that in almost every personal case an exception can happen.
What anyone can assert with high reliance is that happenstance and novel circumstances not planned for will deliver ever-increasing challenges. They multiply the likelihood of trouble in rough proportion to the length of the interval during which you rely rationalistically on perfect conformance to rules.
It may be that you do not care about that, because it is a better guide to policy than you prefer. You seem to prefer easily memorized rules to the more complicated lessons delivered by experience, even though the latter are wiser policy guides than rule reliance.
In that respect you part company with more-experienced managers of firearms policy, such as the professional military. They indoctrinate firearms users with rules, and then discount the effects of that indoctrination to near zero, in favor of policies to prevent occurrence of needless opportunities for misuse.
"the professional military."
Not quite sure how this comes in as somehow excusing Baldwin. To translate the incident to a military setting, if Sgt. Smith hands Col. Baldwin a gun, saying it's unloaded, and Col. Baldwin subsequently shoots Cpl. Jones with it, Col. Baldwin and Sgt. Smith are both in big, big, big trouble.
Cpl. Jones has been shot in any case.
Better to tailor gun handling policy around the notion that no reliance on rules can reduce untoward shootings to near zero. Instead, policies work better to minimize access to arms to the bare minimum necessary to accommodate specific needs. Which is the military system in a nutshell.
Of course gun enthusiasts would denounce that as tyranny. Which is why they rationalize countless avoidable shootings by insisting rules alone should have prevented them. Which is an attempt to deflect better policy, not a realistic attempt to prevent avoidable shootings.
"Instead, policies work better to minimize access to arms to the bare minimum necessary to accommodate specific needs."
Gee, that is in fact my policy! I only access arms to accommodate a specific need. So we're good!
When you were a gun owner, were you in the habit of accessing them for no reason? Seems like kind of a waste of time.
I am compelled to take a trip down memory lane. I attended a summer camp from the age of 9 to 13. Riflery was a very popular activity. It was run by a Mr. Russ, an NRA member and gun enthusiast.
One thing that sticks in my mind is that the three most important things for Mr. Russ were: Safety, Safety and Safety. He was very strict about it. If you pointed a gun at anyone, you lost riflery privileges for a month. Everyone knew that if you crossed the safety line, the result would be severe. And no one did.
I too went to a camp that had riflery. And the first message was safety, as was the second and third. Every infraction came with a dead serious review and a penalty. To this day, whenever I see a person handle a gun in a movie without conscious safety and discipline, alarms go off inside me.
I vaguely remember being able to earn an NRA patch by the end of the summer based on your safety record. As a result of that experience, even though I never owned a gun, the NRA became synonymous to me with safe handling of guns. Of course, many people perceive it otherwise.
Two rules immediately come to mind in this case, even though I know next to nothing about it:
Rule 1: NEVER point a gun at anybody
Rule 2: ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded
Ramah....Poconos? 🙂
It makes you wonder how many involuntary manslaughter convictions even happen in New Mexico or how many prosecutors even bother to bring charges, especially when a slam dunk defense is apparently “I didn’t know it could kill him!” or even “I knew but wasn’t thinking about that.” I’m curious how it actually plays out in court cases (and maybe we’ll find out here).
I can think of a number of scenarios where the heightened requirements might be a hurdle but anti-gun activist disregards gun safety a 5 year old knows, points a gun at someone and shoots them in the head isn't one of them.
Whoa.
This is why you always see the good lawyers on here saying they don't practice in this or that state and can only speak generally.
That'd have tripped me up for sure.
Oh, come on. Negligence is negligence.
lol
No, it's not. This isn't common law, nor is it the model penal code. It's some New Mexico special thing - that's why it's tricky.
Read the OP.
Unlike standard negligence there's a subjective mens rea: ""willful disregard of the rights or safety of others," based on "subjective knowledge 'of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions."
It's not like this particular wrinkle is out of left field, though. Many states employ a "conscious disregard" standard for recklessness or gross negligence in the context of these types of crimes. Anyone with a passing familiarity with citing out-of-state authorities should know that this is something you have to watch out for. When you know to look for it, it doesn't take that much effort to find.
Fair enough. My experience in criminal law is basically academic, with a bit of Maryland criminal practice from a clinic.
I was joking. (note the lol)
I've been pretty much of the belief that basic gun training says check if it's loaded as soon as you pick it up or it is handed to you. A recent story said the gun was supposed to be loaded not with blanks, which are clearly recognizable, but with dummy bullets. Presumably so the revolver would look loaded head on to the camera. The story claimed five of the bullets were actually dummies. Baldwin may not have been able to visually check the load. (Although common sense would seem to dictate you somehow clearly mark dummy rounds.) I have also read that this wasn't a scheduled rehearsal, that Baldwin went on the set, picked up the gun, and practiced his quick draw. Is that true? There's also been a lot of did he or did he not pull the tigger and whether there was a functional half cock safety on the gun.
The upshot is that I've given up having an opinion on Baldwin because there's just too much I don't know that the prosecutor and Baldwin's presumably very expensive lawyers do know.
“Although common sense would seem to dictate you somehow clearly mark dummy rounds.”
If a gunsmith needs dummy cartridges to, for example, troubleshoot a feeding problem, one common practice is to drill a decent size hole across a diameter of the case. That visually confirms it is a dummy (because, inter alia, any powder would leak out).
For movies that wouldn’t work for scenes where the character was handling cartridges, bur would work for ones where the cartridges are in a revolver.
From Baldwin's transcript, it's going to be difficult to convict him. He apparently thought live rounds were "never" used on set. Flash rounds, dummy rounds, but never actual real live bullets.
Many of the set regulations back that up.
If it's Baldwin's subjective knowledge, and he "knew" there were no live rounds on set....It's going to be tough. The Prosecution is going to have to hinge their argument on the fact Baldwin knew there "might" be live rounds on set.
They'd need to examine his past movies and experience there.
He can still be convicted. Because he knew it was a real gun and that real guns fire real bullets.
I'm also very curious about how Baldwin is going to negate the natural inference that he wasn't a complete idiot and understood pointing guns at cinematographers and pulling the trigger could kill them. Is he going to take the stand and testify that he was too stupid to understand that or that he thought it was OK to play with guns as long as other people told them they weren't loaded? Is he going to survive cross-examination?
“He can still be convicted. Because he knew it was a real gun and that real guns fire real bullets.”
But if he also “knew” there were no real bullets on set, and there were never real bullets on set, it just wasn’t a thing that happened… That’s where it gets problematic.
He would testify that he knew (or rather subjectively knew at that time) that there weren’t any live rounds on set. Not only depending on other people saying that the firearm wasn’t loaded, but also confident in the knowledge that there weren’t any live rounds on the set for the firearm to be loaded with in the first place.
To use an analogy, imagine dummy explosives marked "nitroglycerine" on the set. There's no reason to have actual nitroglycerine on set. There's never actual nitroglycerine on set. It just doesn't happen. Anything marked "Nitroglycerine" is always just water or a mock solution.
But then one day, someone mixes in some real nitroglycerine. And then when using the "dummy" explosives, the real one explodes and injures someone.
"But if he also “knew” there were no real bullets on set..."
That is impossible to know. Particularly when there was at least one on set.
Baldwin's public statements have not helped himself. He claims he never pulled the trigger, but others say that is impossible. If it can be shown that he lied, then his other statements might be seen as self-serving lies.
He apparently thought live rounds were “never” used on set.
...
If it’s Baldwin’s subjective knowledge, and he “knew” there were no live rounds on set….It’s going to be tough.
But he didn't "know" any such thing. And in fact, given the multiple accidental discharge incidents that happened PRIOR TO Baldwin aiming and firing a gun at someone, prompting many members of the crew threaten to walk off the set (or actually do so) due to the lax safety procedures, Baldwin had *ample* reason to be extra cautious when handling the firearm, and not take anything for granted.
It is likely intended that at some point in the playacting of the film that the gun would indeed be pointed at another human, and the trigger pulled. The actor is supposed to be acting. That breaks 3 of the 4 safety rules as a matter of necessity. So the only rule left to rely upon is assume it is loaded. The margin for error has just been substantially reduced by nature of the environment the gun is being used.
So then it is a mystery to me why there is a fully operational weapon on set, for which substitution of a live round for a blank without projectile* is the difference between life and death. Presumably they want something that goes bang, makes smoke, and makes kick. All quite reasonable goals of realism. But still no reason that all these goals cannot be met with either 1) real historical weapon that has its breech re-designed so that only blanks can be chambered, or 2) a fine replica that similarly can chamber only blanks.
Once the gun design is made functionally safe, then when rules 2-4 are compromised/broken, then at least there cannot be a chunk of lead flying around the set.
*, yes, wadding, debris, and percussion of hypersonic gasses are lethal from blanks, but only at very close range.
It is likely intended that at some point in the playacting of the film that the gun would indeed be pointed at another human, and the trigger pulled. The actor is supposed to be acting. That breaks 3 of the 4 safety rules as a matter of necessity.
This ignores the fact that they could use fake guns and special effects/CGI to film a gunfight.
Of course, actors don't like that because using real guns makes them feel macho. And they're too important to personally check if guns are loaded.
"Of course, actors don’t like that because using real guns makes them feel macho. And they’re too important to personally check if guns are loaded."
I sincerely hope the quality of your bullshit here does not reflect the standard quality of your legal filings. Your bias is grotesque.
It's not bias. If you want to prove to us that CGI cannot be used to simulate a gunfight, go ahead. Do it. Show us your expertise and how that is wrong.
Because if CGI CAN be used to simulate a gunfight, my thesis is absolutely the logical inference. In fact, I suspect the prosecutors may even be able to prove that actors like real guns because of machismo in this case.
It is absolutely bias, and you're embarrassing yourself both with it and denying that it's there.
Now you're moving the goalposts and pretending that CGI is a panacea of problem-solving, and therefore your evidence-free bullshit must be true.
Here's a "logical inference" for you: CGI is fucking expensive, among other drawbacks that you clearly are not willing to contemplate because of your bias.
Why don't you prove your allegation, since you're so damn sure of it being a bias-free conclusion based solely on logic.
CGI being expensive is exactly the sort of argument you never want to make in a court case. It's the Ford Pinto case all over again.
Nobody cares that your movie might be more expensive in order to protect people's safety.
But also, they use real guns even in extremely expensive movies where all the CGI they want is available. Why? Machismo.
You need to stop it. You are obviously angry and are projecting that anger and bias onto the rest of the world. A young woman died and Hollywood killed her, and that death happened in part because the industry caters to people who like the thrill of using real guns on movie sets. And now people are being held to account for that, properly.
The most recent previous death from a gun used as a prop seems to be the death of Brandon Lee in 1993; the bullet from a dummy lodged in the gun barrel and was propelled by a blank fired at Lee. (I am surprised this death was not mentioned in all of these comments.) There was some talk at the time about developing prop guns that would appear to fire realistically but not involve blanks, before CGI was a realistic option. There are probably a number of other dangerous conditions in movie making that cause a death every few decades; how much should be spent to mitigate them?
It is probably not machismo of actors driving the use of real guns, and few actors would have the clout to overrule producers.
I'm sorry, we were talking about your infallible and obviously correct conclusion that the only reason real firearms are used in some films is the machismo desire of actors.
How do we know that's wrong?
1) It's sexist and derogatory.
2) You immediately move the goalposts once called out on your ignorance.
3) This is the big one that I've been waiting to see if you ever figured out on your own: ACTORS DON'T MAKE THAT DECISION, DIRECTORS DO.
"Real firearms" have been used on film sets for decades and the statistics show that, when industry standard procedures are followed, they are overwhelmingly safe. The use of CGI does not boil down to a simple "my movie might be more expensive to make." It might be more expensive, it might ruin the film if the CGI isn't good, competent CGI studios might not be available, or the movie might not even get made at all!
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're blatantly dishonest to pretend that your sexist insult is the only logical conclusion.
"Of course, actors don’t like that because using real guns makes them feel macho. And they’re too important to personally check if guns are loaded."
*That's* bias.
If you know anything about the industry, that is absolutely a reasonable inference.
Am I criminally liable if the lightsaber I'm given on set slices Luke Skywalker's hand off?* No I'm not, because lightsabers aren't real (and of course neither is Luke's hand). It's likewise fair to assume any gun I'm handed on a tv or movie set isn't "real," i.e., functional. There's a cottage industry that converts working firearms to inoperative props specifically for movie, tv and theatrical use. Why in the world would any actor suspect a professional armorer had slipped a working handgun into the production? That's the stuff of Agatha Christie. Actors aren't trained in firearm safety precisely because the operative policy and assumption is they're not working with actual firearms.
(*Yes, I'm Darth Vader).
"Yes, I’m Darth Vader"
Don't tell anyone, but you're a father. Of twins.
Andrew Branca, who does self defense law, has an article where he mentions that because a firearm is classified as inherently dangerous property it should fit the standard for involuntary manslaughter
https://lawofselfdefense.com/legal-analysis-alec-baldwin-situation-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/
Branca pointed out that guns, like dynamite, etc, are subject to strict liability as a result of ring inherently dangerous.
Why do they have to use real guns? Can’t they use a “dummy” prop that doesn’t shoot bullets? Probably would be cheaper anyway.
I see Dilan already made this point!
And I got called "ignorant" for it, as if CGI doesn't exist.
How many people were charged in these incidents:
A special agent with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is dead after being accidentally shot by another IRS agent during a training exercise Thursday at a federal gun range in Phoenix, officials confirmed.
But the officers also detailed in court several safety missteps and missed opportunities to take measures that would have prevented the accidental fatal shooting of a 73-year-old Punta Gorda woman last summer during a community event. The officer who fired the fatal shots was not using one of the training guns kept in the Police Department's armory, and he walked around that evening carrying a revolver in his waistband. Instead of harmless blanks used for training, lethal ammunition was given to the officer and used at the event, according to the testimony on the second day of Punta Gorda Police Chief Tom Lewis' trial on a misdemeanor negligence charge. Lewis could face up to 60 days in jail if convicted.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer died after he was wounded while at a west Miami-Dade shooting range Wednesday morning,
authorities said.
Those were all çops involved in accidental shootings, and the worst consequences were a possible 60 days in jail.