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

[Le Français]

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

If manslaughter is defined as an action that leads to death after the actor disregards a risk that the action will cause death, that action can be justified by self defense. It may not result in a manslaughter charge or conviction, but the elements of the crime are there. Think of the elements as the definition. A thing is logically indistinguishable from its definition.

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.

I'm glad you got that off your chest (it is a pet peeve of mine too). The fact that you think you might be teaching me this concept for the first time is amusing. I have worked cases as a criminal investigator in twelve states, on a variety of cases and with a caliber of prosecutor that I dare say favorably compares to what you've done. This ain't CJ 101, and you ain't the professor.

My basic point is reiterated at the beginning of this post. I think we are talking past each other, and my initial contribution to this conversation wasn't even that relevant to the thread to begin with.

[Malamute]

In all the recent coverage of this, and in particular the case dealing with Gutierrez-Reed, I havent heard anything recently regarding the guns being taken out for live fire plinking earlier in the day. Was that determined to be incorrect information?

The current reporting and finger pointing seems to focus on the question "How did live ammo get on the set?"

Earlier reports indicated that "Two reports now suggest that the gun that killed "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was used for live-ammo target practice by crew members on the morning of the shooting.

Several crew members took guns from the movie, including the one that killed Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza, and drove away from the "Rust" set at the Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico to shoot beer cans with live ammunition, according to sources cited by The Wrap and TMZ.

Detectives searching the set found loose ammunition inside a fanny pack as well as in boxes, and lying around loosely, The New York Times reported, citing a court filing."

[ccmdfd]

In all the recent coverage of this, and in particular the case dealing with Gutierrez-Reed, I havent heard anything recently regarding the guns being taken out for live fire plinking earlier in the day. Was that determined to be incorrect information?

The current reporting and finger pointing seems to focus on the question "How did live ammo get on the set?"

Yeah, I have too have noticed that they haven't been really bringing that up anymore.

[Rex G]

In all the recent coverage of this, and in particular the case dealing with Gutierrez-Reed, I havent heard anything recently regarding the guns being taken out for live fire plinking earlier in the day. Was that determined to be incorrect information?

The current reporting and finger pointing seems to focus on the question "How did live ammo get on the set?"

Earlier reports indicated that "Two reports now suggest that the gun that killed "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was used for live-ammo target practice by crew members on the morning of the shooting.

Several crew members took guns from the movie, including the one that killed Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza, and drove away from the "Rust" set at the Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico to shoot beer cans with live ammunition, according to sources cited by The Wrap and TMZ.

Detectives searching the set found loose ammunition inside a fanny pack as well as in boxes, and lying around loosely, The New York Times reported, citing a court filing."

Yeah, I have too have noticed that they haven't been really bringing that up anymore.

I was wondering about this matter, too. The live-fire shooting being discussed, while the PDQ* owner was under oath, happened far away, at a totally different time, near the 1883 set, at a shooting range set-up on the 1883 writer’s ranch. I had to stop watching, before that line of questioning was complete, but I am wondering whether that may have been conflated, in early news media reports, to the point that it had become a narrative of live fire happening near the Rust set.

*PDQ owned the Pietta firearm that Baldwin used, but was not the sole supplier of ammo on the set. PDQ had supplied some dummy ammo, that had earlier been used on the set of 1883, if I am correctly recalling the testimony.

[Rex G]

I did learn, from listening to testimony, that dummy ammo tends to fall from actors’, extras’, and stunt players’ belts and bandoliers, and that actors, extras, and crew will tend to steal dummy ammo, for souvenir/keepsake purposes. The armorer tries to round-up as much of these loose dummy rounds, as possible, because there is only a finite supply, which became scarcer during the Panic-Demic.

Assuming that at least some folks on the set use .45 Colt firearms recreationally, and assuming that folks are not searched*, for live ammo, before they enter the set, I can see how live .45 Colt ammo could easily “contaminate” the hundreds or even thousands of dummy rounds that are on a set. (I regularly find loose revolver ammo, in clothing pockets, especially the right lower front pockets of vests and jackets, where I have intentionally placed it, for tactical/carry reasons.)

*Part of diligent group dry-fire, role-play, and force-on-force training is that EVERYONE is searched for live ammo and live blades, before a training exercise. To keep it fair, everyone searches each other.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Loose ammo is found in the washing machine, along with empties - igniting the wrath of the ruler of laundry room.

I think (what do I know) that there is enough reasonable doubt that Baldwin is responsible for a jury to convict.

[BehindBlueI's]

If manslaughter is defined as an action that leads to death after the actor disregards a risk that the action will cause death, that action can be justified by self defense. It may not result in a manslaughter charge or conviction, but the elements of the crime are there. Think of the elements as the definition. A thing is logically indistinguishable from its definition.

If. But it isn't, which is why I asked you to post your state code. You're over simplifying it.

1) Manslaughter is a *crime*, not simply 'an action'.

2) Not every action that leads to death via disregarded risk is manslaughter. Running a red light and killing someone in a traffic crash, absent other circumstances, is both criminal and an act that lead to someone's death due to a risk taken but is not manslaughter.


Your idea of how this works also mandates the idea that the officer who takes the head shot murdered the suspect but then was justified by self defense/defense of others. Justified murder. Does that seem logical to you? No, because elements of the crime only matter *if it's a criminal act*. As soon as it's determined to not be criminal, it's *not* murder and *not* manslaughter, it's simply a homicide. If you want to believe it's justified murder and justified manslaughter, you do you, but that's not 'classic manslaughter' nor how it's applied or widely perceived.

The fact that you think you might be teaching me this concept for the first time is amusing. I have worked cases as a criminal investigator in twelve states, on a variety of cases and with a caliber of prosecutor that I dare say favorably compares to what you've done. This ain't CJ 101, and you ain't the professor.

Yet you thought jury outcomes changed UCR stats and were using jury outcomes to attempt to justify the concept of justified crimes. I'm sure you get the concept, but you are misapplying it. I think you're taking your personal philosophy and attempting to say that's how it's practically applied or viewed in the criminal justice system, which is not the case.

[Le Français]

1) Manslaughter is a *crime*, not simply 'an action'.

A successful affirmative defense negates criminal liability, but the elements of the crime are met. Again, think of the elements as the definition. In much of the US, self defense (like the statute of limitations) is an affirmative defense. The defendant is saying "The elements of the crime are met and I did it, BUT I am not liable." Some attorneys explicitly refer to an affirmative defense as a justification for having committed a crime. You may think that a crime never took place at all, but I don't see much support for that view. The elements are what define the crime. That's why we got 'em, after all.

2) Not every action that leads to death via disregarded risk is manslaughter. Running a red light and killing someone in a traffic crash, absent other circumstances, is both criminal and an act that lead to someone's death due to a risk taken but is not manslaughter.

You could have written "is not manslaughter, in my state" and you'd be on firmer ground. The law in your state is what matters to you, and that is fine and understandable. But is it neither interesting nor applicable to almost everyone in this country. Your hypothetical absolutely could be charged as manslaughter if the language of the statute fits (which it does, in some states).

Your idea of how this works also mandates the idea that the officer who takes the head shot murdered the suspect but then was justified by self defense/defense of others.

Again, this depends on the law in question. In a jurisdiction in which the mens rea for murder is "intentionally" and/or "with malice aforethought", an officer taking a headshot in self defense or in defense of others, intending to stop the suspect, definitely does not murder the suspect. That is because there was no malice aforethought, and killing was not the conscious goal (so, not intentional). There is no murder because the elements of the crime aren't there. But, the elements of manslaughter are there in certain states.

If you want to believe it's [...] justified manslaughter, you do you, but that's not 'classic manslaughter'

Someone's conception of "classic manslaughter" definitely varies depending on their training and experience. It's a clumsy term for sure, since it implies some sort of consensus. No one definition should be proffered as applying to everyone. My early training taught me one definition, which applies in a particular place, and yours taught you another, which also applies in a particular place. That's ok--it's how this country works with 51+ different criminal codes.

Earlier in the thread, you defined manslaughter as:

It's when you have illegally killed someone without thinking it through or planning it, the "heat of the moment" killing.

That may be it where you work, but it falls very short of the full definition of manslaughter in many states. Pick a few at random and you’ll see. It's a big world out there.

Yet you thought jury outcomes changed UCR stats

The correct view is that jury outcomes do not change UCR stats. The context is that I don't really think much about UCR. We have people for that. It's more of an admin thing. You have an admin role, and statistics and records are important to you. That's perfectly fine, and you are quite right to insist on accuracy vis-à-vis UCR. Don't forget that your role, experience, and interests, just like your state laws, apply to a very small number of people.

[You] were using jury outcomes to attempt to justify the concept of justified crimes.

No, I wasn't. I was responding to the below quote, wherein you displayed overconfidence that your determination as an investigator was what defined the action "under the law". I was reminding you that the ultimate decision can be taken far out of your hands; all the way to a jury, in some cases.

The end result for they hypothetical LEO shooting the hostage taker under the law [...] is Justifiable Homicide regardless of how long it takes the person to die.

Now, the real questions are: Is the beating death of this topic properly defined as manslaughter? What about the fact that we are continuing to beat it post mortem? Abuse of a corpse? Do any affirmative defenses apply??

[ccmdfd]

Well, guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Next!

[Rex G]

Well, to get back to the original topic, the closing arguments presented by the defense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaUh8HZExhs

One interestingly compelling argument, by the defense, was that Alec Baldwin WENT OFF-SCRIPT, when he pointed the gun at the camera, and therefore at Ms. Hutchins and the director. Notably, Alec Baldwin had done a similar thing, going off-script to fire a blank round AT THE CAMERA CREW, after the director (or another crew member*) had yelled “cut,” during filming. A member of the crew had then called Alec Baldwin an expletive, after that shot, before the camera had stopped rolling. This film clip had been shown to the jury, as evidence. Yes, Alec Baldwin had fired a blank round, AT THE CAMERA CREW, on another occasion during the filming, after someone had yelled “CUT.”

I have not seen nearly all of the witness testimony, so, cannot be sure, but, it looks like the investigation was quite the clown show. Much evidence is, quite simply, missing.

I am not taking H.G.-R’s side, yet, but the prosecution is most certainly not assured of a win, in my opinion. As I see it, the Assistant Director, who already plead-out to a misdemeanor, seems “more guilty” than Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, or, at least, equally guilty. (I watched his testimony, which is in another you tube episode.) Notably, this Assistant Director, under oath, admitted that he was as responsible as H.G.-R. in making certain that the cartridges were dummy cartridges, and, admitted that he had failed to check each cartridge. Another female crew member, who was given immunity, before testifying, appears to be the one who made valuable evidence disappear.

As for the potential sources of the live ammo, one was PDQ. The owner of PDQ testified that he had provided no live ammo to the Rust set, but that he had provided live ammo to the 1883 set. The scene images, captured during the search warrant service at PDQ clearly showed a disorganized mess. PDQ also appeared to work without paper invoices, to back-up anything. The other source of dummy cartridges, who had provided .45 Colt dummies to the Rust set, was never interviewed by investigators, nor was his facility searched!

This are just a few highlights, that came immediately to mind.

Next, when I find time, I will watch the prosecution’s closing arguments.

*One of the safety rules, in the movie industry, is that anyone is able to yell “cut,” if an unsafe situation is occurring.