Alec Baldwin kills crew member on set with "prop gun"

[Le Français]

@BehindBlueI's

I disagree. You are using your state’s definition of voluntary manslaughter, which is not appropriate to my hypothetical, because there is no intent to kill. Rather, I am thinking of “classic manslaughter” as the killing of another person without intent to kill. The state where I first worked as a cop has, as one definition of manslaughter, the killing of another person after consciously disregarding a risk that the action could cause death. I was trained to consider that the core concept behind involuntary manslaughter, and it certainly can be justified by SD as an affirmative defense. The shooter did know that there was a risk the shot could kill, but fired anyway because it was in defense of others.

My use of “classic manslaughter” wasn’t optimal because the 50 states have varying definitions. Neither my small, relatively insignificant state nor yours should be held up by either of us as some kind of governing standard.

I would also remind you that investigators are not always the final arbiters of what is justifiable homicide. You might think or feel that the cop who shot the hostage taker is not criminally liable, but if the prosecutor’s office, grand jury, judge, and petit jury think differently, something else might be entered into the UCR at the end of the road.

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks (as well to the others who responded). I figured it was probably that way but wasn't 100% certain.

Not to take this too far off topic but how is that handled in the legal system? For instance, let's say the victim in this particular incident had survived the gunshot wound but was paralyzed.( she did receive a serious spinal cord injury according to the autopsy report). Mr Baldwin and Miss Gutierrez are tried and convicted of whatever the appropriate lesser charge is for that. But then two or three years later the victim dies from complications from her paralysis which is certainly known to happen.

Are there convictions changed from whatever the Lesser charge is to manslaughter then? Is there a change in their sentencing?

Thanks

You can't change a conviction, nor can you revisit sentencing. You may be able to file new charges, though, and take those to trial.

[BehindBlueI's]

@BehindBlueI's

I disagree. You are using your state’s definition of voluntary manslaughter, which is not appropriate to my hypothetical, because there is no intent to kill. Rather, I am thinking of “classic manslaughter” as the killing of another person without intent to kill. The state where I first worked as a cop has, as one definition of manslaughter, the killing of another person after consciously disregarding a risk that the action could cause death.

Post up the state code and let's work through it. Maybe your state was some exception, but I'm strongly confident that both UCR/NIBRS and the vast majority of the western criminal justice system defines it as I've stated.

I was trained to consider that the core concept behind involuntary manslaughter, and it certainly can be justified by SD as an affirmative defense.

How many did you work?

If it's justified, it is *not* manslaughter. Same as there's no justified murder. A justifiable action is, by definition, not a crime so manslaughter or murder no longer matter. Once the question of "is this justified" is answered (edit: with a "yes"), the flow chart stops.

I would also remind you that investigators are not always the final arbiters of what is justifiable homicide. You might think or feel that the cop who shot the hostage taker is not criminally liable, but if the prosecutor’s office, grand jury, judge, and petit jury think differently, something else might be entered into the UCR at the end of the road.

Nobody said investigators are the final arbitrator, but there was no disagreement in the hypothetical so I don't get the relevance. However this sidebar is incorrect. What a petit jury or judge thinks has zero impact on UCR. If a prosecutor decided it was murder and it went to trial, UCR would reflect Murder - Cleared By Arrest. Trial outcomes do not change UCR at all.

[DDTSGM]

Yeah. But the example I was thinking of was pre-planned hostage rescue by law enforcement. As in “the negotiation is not going anywhere, this guy is getting more agitated, what next?” In the US, as far as I know, the training and doctrine are that if you’re going to shoot in that scenario, you’re shooting for incapacitation of the entire body. In some other places, they think about the feasibility of a wrist/elbow/shoulder shot to disable the weapon arm, even if the head or upper chest are unobstructed.

If that sounds like a ridiculous movie scenario, hold someone at gunpoint and then have someone else shoot you in the elbow with full-house .357 Mag at a moment when your muzzle had drifted slightly off target. Then get tackled by seven dudes one second later and tell me if you managed to kill the hostage.

ETA: In the above scenarios, there is often a tactically-trained medical doctor there at the scene, giving medical advice in real time about the implications of targeting different parts of the body. (Sometimes, the advice is “aim for the bridge of the nose.”)

Let’s say the cop is tasked with executing a wrist shot, agrees, takes the shot, and then the guy with the shattered wrist dies from a related infection two weeks later. Contrast that with a situation in which the plan is to shoot COM, and the suspect is DRT because COM was his brain. The latter is classic manslaughter (albeit probably justified). The shooter knew that death was a likely outcome. The former—not so much.

Gotcha!

[Le Français]

Post up the state code and let's work through it. Maybe your state was some exception, but I'm strongly confident that both UCR/NIBRS and the vast majority of the western criminal justice system defines it as I've stated.

If it's justified, it is *not* manslaughter. Same as there's no justified murder. A justifiable action is, by definition, not a crime so manslaughter or murder no longer matter. Once the question of "is this justified" is answered, the flow chart stops.

The state code is as I paraphrased: Action leads to death after the actor (no pun intended) disregards a risk that the action will cause death. That action can be justified by self defense.

How many did you work?

Single digits.

However this sidebar is incorrect. What a petit jury or judge thinks has zero impact on UCR. If a prosecutor decided it was murder and it went to trial, UCR would reflect Murder - Cleared By Arrest. Trial outcomes do not change UCR at all.

Yes, you are right about UCR.

[Coyotesfan97]

Yeah. But the example I was thinking of was pre-planned hostage rescue by law enforcement. As in “the negotiation is not going anywhere, this guy is getting more agitated, what next?” In the US, as far as I know, the training and doctrine are that if you’re going to shoot in that scenario, you’re shooting for incapacitation of the entire body. In some other places, they think about the feasibility of a wrist/elbow/shoulder shot to disable the weapon arm, even if the head or upper chest are unobstructed.

If that sounds like a ridiculous movie scenario, hold someone at gunpoint and then have someone else shoot you in the elbow with full-house .357 Mag at a moment when your muzzle had drifted slightly off target. Then get tackled by seven dudes one second later and tell me if you managed to kill the hostage.

ETA: In the above scenarios, there is often a tactically-trained medical doctor there at the scene, giving medical advice in real time about the implications of targeting different parts of the body. (Sometimes, the advice is “aim for the bridge of the nose.”)

Let’s say the cop is tasked with executing a wrist shot, agrees, takes the shot, and then the guy with the shattered wrist dies from a related infection two weeks later. Contrast that with a situation in which the plan is to shoot COM, and the suspect is DRT because COM was his brain. The latter is classic manslaughter (albeit probably justified). The shooter knew that death was a likely outcome. The former—not so much.

Are you saying that a justifiable shot taken by a LEO to end an armed hostage situation is manslaughter? For us it’s classified as a homicide, the case is forwarded to the County Attorney for review, and the shooter is generally cleared with the justification.

We aren’t shooting someone in the elbow with a 357 to end an HRT it’s most likely a 308 to the head.

[Le Français]

Are you saying that a justifiable shot taken by a LEO to end an armed hostage situation is manslaughter? For us it’s classified as a homicide, the case is forwarded to the County Attorney for review, and the shooter is generally cleared with the justification.

In a jurisdiction wherein manslaughter is defined as an action that leads to death after the actor disregards a risk that the action will cause death, yes, you could say that shooting and killing someone with the intent to stop them, while knowing there’s a risk of death is manslaughter. That action can be justified by self defense. I realize that states define things differently, and that at the end of the day if the right people deem it justified, it won’t result in a manslaughter charge or conviction. But the elements of manslaughter can still be met, and the elements are what define the term (again, differently in different places).

We aren’t shooting someone in the elbow with a 357 to end an HRT it’s most likely a 308 to the head.

As I wrote, I know you aren’t:

In the US, as far as I know, the training and doctrine are that if you’re going to shoot in that scenario, you’re shooting for incapacitation of the entire body. In some other places, they think about the feasibility of a wrist/elbow/shoulder shot to disable the weapon arm, even if the head or upper chest are unobstructed.

Bringing this up was a perhaps misguided attempt on my part to suggest that we might one day see similar ideas take root in US law and LE doctrine. Who knows. I certainly wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but it’s enough of a stretch that upon due reflection I don’t think it belongs in this thread.

[DDTSGM]

Are you saying that a justifiable shot taken by a LEO to end an armed hostage situation is manslaughter? For us it’s classified as a homicide, the case is forwarded to the County Attorney for review, and the shooter is generally cleared with the justification.

I was thinking there was some crossed thoughts between the two posters. To my thinking there is no such thing as a justified shooting until the proper charging authority determines not to charge. I suppose an agency could choose not to forward the case, but I've never heard of that happening, especially with the possibility of civil litigation to consider.

[BehindBlueI's]

In a jurisdiction wherein manslaughter is defined as an action that leads to death after the actor disregards a risk that the action will cause death, yes, you could say that shooting and killing someone with the intent to stop them, while knowing there’s a risk of death is manslaughter. That action can be justified by self defense.

This is not a difference in state codes, this is an improper application of definitions. There is no justified manslaughter or murder.

I'll just bullet point it out. Assume that we are talking legal/practical and not philosophical/religious.

1) An act is not a crime unless the state deems it to be a crime.

2) An act the state deems as justified is not a crime.

3) Manslaughter and Murder are crimes.

4) An act that the state deems justified is therefore neither Manslaughter nor Murder. It's a justified homicide, because homicide is a neutral term that does not indicate criminal or non-criminal act.


States can vary on terminology as far as Manslaughter vs level 4 Murder or whatever, but the above bullet point is universal in US law.

To head off the "but the jury" rebuttal, a jury in the US can not find you "justified" any more than they can find you "innocent". A US criminal court is not a scientific inquiry into the truth of the matter at hand, rather it's primarily a method of protecting the rights of the accused, hence the binary guilty or not guilty. A jury may believe you are innocent or you were justified, and use that as a rationale to find you not guilty, but again remaining in the legal realm, it does not equate to "justifiable manslaughter", just that the accused is not guilty of manslaughter (or murder or whatever).

[Hambo]

This is not a difference in state codes, this is an improper application of definitions. There is no justified manslaughter or murder.

I'll just bullet point it out. Assume that we are talking legal/practical and not philosophical/religious.

1) An act is not a crime unless the state deems it to be a crime.

2) An act the state deems as justified is not a crime.

3) Manslaughter and Murder are crimes.

4) An act that the state deems justified is therefore neither Manslaughter nor Murder. It's a justified homicide, because homicide is a neutral term that does not indicate criminal or non-criminal act.


States can vary on terminology as far as Manslaughter vs level 4 Murder or whatever, but the above bullet point is universal in US law.

To head off the "but the jury" rebuttal, a jury in the US can not find you "justified" any more than they can find you "innocent". A US criminal court is not a scientific inquiry into the truth of the matter at hand, rather it's primarily a method of protecting the rights of the accused, hence the binary guilty or not guilty. A jury may believe you are innocent or you were justified, and use that as a rationale to find you not guilty, but again remaining in the legal realm, it does not equate to "justifiable manslaughter", just that the accused is not guilty of manslaughter (or murder or whatever).

Well done. I would add that people who think they understand how a jury works, should locate and read jury instructions. Prior to deliberations, the duty of the jury, and what they can and cannot do, is very clearly explained.