Judge Orders Alec Baldwin to Face Trial for ‘Rust’ Shooting
Judge Orders Alec Baldwin to Face Trial for ‘Rust’ Shooting
www.thedailybeast.com
Judge Orders Alec Baldwin to Face Trial for ‘Rust’ Shooting
60 comments
-
Unless the judge has some knowledge that Baldwin either had intent, or was negligent in such a way as to contribute to the death, I'm not seeing what purpose it would serve to have him stand trial. He must feel absolutely terrible as it is, and my understanding is that it was not at all his fault.
-
Unless the judge has some knowledge that Baldwin either had intent, or was negligent in such a way as to contribute to the death,
Trials are the thing we do that allow juries/judges to come to those conclusions.
-
The purpose is to prosecute him for the crime he has been charged with. That charge is Involuntary manslaughter, which explicitly means he was negligent in a way that lead to the death of another person. The purpose of having him(or literally anyone) stand trial in the American justice system is (supposed) to examine the evidence and determine if it supports the charges against the (presumed innocent) defendant. You don’t get let off the hook for your mistakes just because you ‘feel absolutely terrible’ about it. Your understanding of fault in this situation is incorrect.
-
It won't be intent. The article says that it's involuntary manslaughter at issue. Probably negligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary
Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, and gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts themselves in a position where they will be unaware of facts which would render them liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako and R v Perreau). Another example could be leaving a child locked in a car on a hot day.
-
true, most of the blame goes to dumbass negligent idiot who didnt care to do her armourer job and check for live ammo at any point (and probably brought that shit to the set)
and now its about if baldwins trigger pull and bad management is sentence worthy
-
He was negligent but not in his position as the actor holding the weapon. My understanding is he is partly responsible for deciding to choose a non-union safety team that lead to the death.
-
Actually... Both. In regular Firearm handoff protocols Actors have a responsibility to uphold on their end. If everything is done to spec it is impossible to fire a live round from a firearm. Some small obstruction in the barrel getting missed and propelled might be in the realm of reasonable but part of the process of handoff requires a mini briefing on handoff of the weapon where each round is checked over where the actor can see and only authorized people are allowed to handle weapons at all. Been standard since the Brandon Lee death on "The Crow".
Baldwin took the gun from a person on set whom everyone would have known wasn't supposed to be handling it and didn't insist on a check. In our industry actors are briefed every time they accept a role that it is their partial responsibility to make sure those checks are done because it is not just a safety thing, it's a liability issue if you harm someone. If a check is missed as an actor you are supposed to flag it and refuse the unsafe handoff to clear you of any potential liability or after the fact regrets...
Thing is this protocol has ever been throughly tested in a court setting. The last time anyone was killed by a bullet on a set was the cause of the massive change to the industry standard protocol in a mass concerted effort to do a "never again" style pledge which basically worked for 30 years straight. The other notable gun death was an actor who killed himself with a blank by pointing the gun at his own noggin and pulling the trigger which which was something he was expressly not supposed to do for a scene, he just did it on his own without anybody's sign off.
This industry sea change in part is designed to exonerate Productions from negligence charges like what happened on The Crow but it also made it one of the most well respected industry protocols as the Lee death basically became one of the industry's cautionary tale that lingers being retold to each new generation of crew. While non-union sets tend to be less regimented it is known fact that concerns of gun safety issues were already flagged and bought to production by the concerned Rust crew and no motion was made to change. Potentially Baldwin as part of a group may have directly ignored further appeals to firearm related safety prior to the shooting. This isn't the Brandon Lee situation over again - the industry now is a whole new ball game.
(Edit : Forgot to mention that the Rust crew had almost a full beat for beat dry run of the incident a few days before the incident where Baldwin's stunt double discharged two live rounds after being handed a gun that he was told was "cold"... How one ignores that kind of wake up call I'll never know.)
-
-
It was ultimately his responsibility because it was his production. It was not his fault for pulling the trigger, it was the unsafe working conditions on set.
If any of us died at work due to unsafe working conditions then our families would definitely want the employer held responsible to the full extent of the law. Baldwin may be a famous actor but in this situation he was an employer too, not just an actor.
-
Fault is percentage based on the US. The employer and employer can be civilly liable for damages. But this is a criminal trial.
If this was a trucker who refused to check his blind spot routineoy before merging and killed someone the trucker would be held to account.
-
It was not his fault for pulling the trigger
Yeah it was. He says he didn't pull it, but there was nothing wrong with the gun that would cause it to go off any other way. He was pointing it at people. He pointed a real gun at people and he pulled the trigger. Him being told the gun wasn't loaded is irrelevant. There are several levels of negligence at play and there's no excuse for any of it.
-
how is a person getting shot not the fault of the person shooting the gun? like bro if somebody gives you a gun saying it's empty and you shoot somebody to death with it. you're free to go? nah
-
The person who handed him the gun entire job was to make sure it was safe to use that gun as prop on a movie, to simulate danger, but in an utterly safe manner.
That person not only failed to check the gun, but they were also the source of the live ammo. The armorer has already been sentenced to prison for involuntary manslaughter.
"Every gun is dangerous" is the correct general mantra, but when you hire a person to specifically "make a gun not dangerous" who then directly hands you the gun, it's pretty reasonable to assume it's not dangerous. Pulling the trigger as part of your job and then killing someone afterwards isn't directly your fault at that point.
It's terrible, but we know from the armorers trial the cause was her extreme negligence, not Alec baldwin expecting his employees and coworkers to do their job.
-
-
Unless the judge has some knowledge that Baldwin either had intent, or was negligent in such a way as to contribute to the death, I’m not seeing what purpose it would serve to have him stand trial. He must feel absolutely terrible as it is, and my understanding is that it was not at all his fault.
Oh yes. He's reaaalllly sorry. so we should give him special consideration. You know. he's rich, famous and white. this totally entitles him to special consideration....
nah. Fuck that.
leniency is to be determined during sentencing; not before the trial ever takes place. -
-
-
Different article on the same subject on a less garbage website
-
Good Lord this story won't end.
-
I mean, it will end eventually. The first trial is over and I think this is the only other person being tried
-
-
Rule 1 of holding a gun ... you NEVER point it at anyone unless you mean to shoot.
If nothing else Baldwin is at fault for being an arrogant asshole who didn't give a shit about basic gun safety or any of his co-workers.
-
... He thought it was a prop gun. Literally the whole point of a prop gun is being able to point it at people.
-
Wait, maybe I'm not up to speed on the details here. But are you not pointing guns with blanks at people in movies....?
It's not the entire point of Cinema in that you are simulating, faking, an actual interaction?
-
60 comments