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

[ccmdfd]

Question for the legal, medical legal experts.

A number of people are making hay of the fact that the deceased in this case potentially could have survived if she had received more prompt, timely, or appropriate Medical Care. They may actually be correct. Can't say for certain without reviewing the entire medical record, EMS run sheet, etc.

My question:

If her gunshot wound was indeed survivable and the medical care led to her death. Does one not still argue that the whole reason she received poor Medical Care to begin with was that she was shot to begin with, and therefore the defendant in this case is culpable?

[HCM]

Question for the legal, medical legal experts.

A number of people are making hay of the fact that the deceased in this case potentially could have survived if she had received more prompt, timely, or appropriate Medical Care. They may actually be correct. Can't say for certain without reviewing the entire medical record, EMS run sheet, etc.

My question:

If her gunshot wound was indeed survivable and the medical care led to her death. Does one not still argue that the whole reason she received poor Medical Care to begin with was that she was shot to begin with, and therefore the defendant in this case is culpable?

No one can ever say that a gunshot wound is definitively survivable or not.

Deadly force is deadly force, that would be like arguing it’s not deadly force if you aim for particular part of the body.

And the level of medical care and how soon that medical care is received, always varies.

Legally, in terms of criminal responsibility it makes no difference. The fact that she was shot to begin with is what counts.

[Le Français]

If her gunshot wound was indeed survivable and the medical care led to her death. Does one not still argue that the whole reason she received poor Medical Care to begin with was that she was shot to begin with, and therefore the defendant in this case is culpable?

Everything is arguable. The law is interpreted, and old case law gives way to new. In some legal systems not so different from our own, an intentional shot to the shoulder, for example, can carry less legal weight than a shot aimed at the spine, even if the person shot then dies from an infection of the shoulder wound. Time will tell if the law in the US moves in that direction.

[Sero Sed Serio]

Question for the legal, medical legal experts.

A number of people are making hay of the fact that the deceased in this case potentially could have survived if she had received more prompt, timely, or appropriate Medical Care. They may actually be correct. Can't say for certain without reviewing the entire medical record, EMS run sheet, etc.

My question:

If her gunshot wound was indeed survivable and the medical care led to her death. Does one not still argue that the whole reason she received poor Medical Care to begin with was that she was shot to begin with, and therefore the defendant in this case is culpable?

Law schools use the term “eggshell skull plaintiff” to teach this concept, or “you take the victim as you find them.” Much as a drunk driver cannot argue that the other driver would have survived if they had been wearing a seatbelt, the fact that the decedent might have lived had this happened in the parking lot of a trauma center is legally irrelevant.

[FrankB]

Proximate Cause of Death: the disease or injury which represents the starting point in an unbroken chain of events, ending in death---for example, coronary artery disease, a gunshot wound to the chest, blunt force head trauma, lung carcinoma, etc..

My wife and I work from home, and she works for a few Lloyd’s of London U.S. syndicates. I hear “proximate cause” all day long…..

[DDTSGM]

Everything is arguable. The law is interpreted, and old case law gives way to new. In some legal systems not so different from our own, an intentional shot to the shoulder, for example, can carry less legal weight than a shot aimed at the spine, even if the person shot then dies from an infection of the shoulder wound. Time will tell if the law in the US moves in that direction.

How can you tell whether the shot to either the shoulder or spine was intentional? Would you take the shooter's word as to their intent?

I ask this because a district (county) attorney once reached out to me for a report to help determine charging for a guy who had fired a round which struck near the victim. The guy was between 35 to 40 yards from the victim at the time he shot. He claimed he was trying to scare the victim, a former girlfriend. My position was that the muzzle movement required to miss 'that much' at 35 yards was so minute that it was just as likely a marksmanship error.

[Le Français]

How can you tell whether the shot to either the shoulder or spine was intentional? Would you take the shooter's word as to their intent?

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.

[HCM]

I’m aware of a country where intentionally shooting someone below the waist is not considered “deadly force” at least for law enforcement but this whole line of discussion is irrelevant to the thread topic and the (relevant) question that was asked regarding the applicable U.S. legal standard.

Foreign shooting to wound standards are a rabbit hole which should probably be a separate thread.

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

I've no idea how other countries define it, but it isn't "classic manslaughter" in the US. Manslaughter can't be justified, any more than murder can be. It's when you have illegally killed someone without thinking it through or planning it, the "heat of the moment" killing. The old "guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early unannounced kill people" sort of event being the normal example.


The end result for they hypothetical LEO shooting the hostage taker under the law and for UCR/NIBRS is Justifiable Homicide regardless of how long it takes the person to die. A law enforcement officer (or private citizen, doesn't matter in this context) shot a felon during the commission of a felony and the felon died as a result.

Which leads to:

If her gunshot wound was indeed survivable and the medical care led to her death. Does one not still argue that the whole reason she received poor Medical Care to begin with was that she was shot to begin with, and therefore the defendant in this case is culpable?

Legally, it doesn't matter. We will occasionally get notified of a death many years afterward and change the status to homicide. (Could be murder, could be justified, etc but that's based on intent, etc and not the time that's passed). For example, victim of a robbery catches a bullet near the spine. Over the years they survive multiple surgeries but eventually they die from infection and complications of paralysis from the bullet. How long it took them to die doesn't change the fact they wouldn't have died in that manner had it not been for the original act of them being shot. Civil liability wise, it matters. The doctor who is negligent can still be sued, for example, but that doesn't let the original criminal suspect off the hook in any way.

[ccmdfd]

Which leads to:




Legally, it doesn't matter. We will occasionally get notified of a death many years afterward and change the status to homicide. (Could be murder, could be justified, etc but that's based on intent, etc and not the time that's passed). For example, victim of a robbery catches a bullet near the spine. Over the years they survive multiple surgeries but eventually they die from infection and complications of paralysis from the bullet. How long it took them to die doesn't change the fact they wouldn't have died in that manner had it not been for the original act of them being shot. Civil liability wise, it matters. The doctor who is negligent can still be sued, for example, but that doesn't let the original criminal suspect off the hook in any way.

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