Alec Baldwin shooting

[ClydeR]

Just as I said should happen, the prosecutor has resigned in the Baldwin case. The below article says that it is a "major setback" for the case against Baldwin. I disagree. Baldwin got his wish for her to resign. He may regret it, because whoever they get to replace the resigning prosecutor will likely be better.

It’s a major setback in the state’s case against Baldwin and co-defendant Hannah Gutierrez-Reed for the accidental fatal shooting in October 2021 of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the “Rust” movie.

“After much reflection, I have made the difficult decision to step down as special prosecutor in the ‘Rust’ case,” said Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor, in her surprise statement. “My priority in this case — and in every case I’ve prosecuted in my 25-year career — has been justice for the victim.”

“However, it has become clear that the best way I can ensure justice is served in this case is to step down so that the prosecution can focus on the evidence and the facts, which clearly show a complete disregard for basic safety protocols led to the death of Halyna Hutchins,” she said.

Reeb’s decision to recuse herself came after weeks of resistance to that idea by her and First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, who appointed her.

More...

[ClydeR]

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico judge said Santa Fe’s district attorney shouldn’t serve as co-counsel in the manslaughter case against actor Alec Baldwin and a weapons supervisor in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer during a 2021 movie rehearsal. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer on Monday said the district attorney should either lead the case on her own or turn it over entirely to another prosecutor.

More...

Carmack-Altwies has been preparing to appoint a new special prosecutor and also guide the complex case as co-counsel. But a defense attorney for Gutierrez-Reed objected to the arrangement, arguing it would be illegal under New Mexico law and fundamentally unfair to a 25-year-old defendant with limited financial resources.

Marlowe Sommer, the judge, said Monday during a court hearing by videoconference that the district attorney had misread key provisions of state law in assembling a team to prosecute the case.

Baldwin’s attorneys did not intervene in Monday’s arguments. A weekslong preliminary hearing in May will decide whether evidence against Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed is sufficient to proceed to trial.

That’s four for four setbacks for the New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney in her prosecution of Alec Baldwin for the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchings in October 2021.

More...

Already the D.A. lost a February 24 attempt to block Reed’s request to possess a gun in her home for self-defense. Then coming off having to drop a firearm enhancement charge from the on-going case in last month, and the sudden and stinging loss of the besieged Andrea Reeb as special prosecutor earlier this month, the D.A. really needed a win today.

I think the judge has about had it with the prosecutor's poor behavior.

[Tgo01]

The fucker is getting away with murder.

But you fuckers such as Seran and Bhaalizmo will continue to cry about Trump while Democrats are literally murdering people on movie sets and aren't even required to show up to court.

[Bhaalizmo]

The fucker is getting away with murder.

But you fuckers such as Seran and Bhaalizmo will continue to cry about Trump while Democrats are literally murdering people on movie sets and aren't even required to show up to court.

Eat the corn outta my shit, TGO1, you fucking halfwit.

[Gelston]

The fucker is getting away with murder.

But you fuckers such as Seran and Bhaalizmo will continue to cry about Trump while Democrats are literally murdering people on movie sets and aren't even required to show up to court.

Prosecution didn’t have enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I guess.

[Tgo01]

Prosecution didn’t have enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I guess.

He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger which resulted in someone's death. How much more proof do they need to bring to trial?

Let's get real, this is because he's a Hollywood liberal douchebag. No way a poor black kid is going to be able to get away using this lame excuse of "I didn't know it was loaded!"

[Parkbandit]

Eat the corn outta my shit, TGO1, you fucking halfwit.

Let's keep your bedroom talk in Ashliana's bedroom.

Thanks.

[Parkbandit]

He pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger which resulted in someone's death. How much more proof do they need to bring to trial?

Let's get real, this is because he's a Hollywood liberal douchebag. No way a poor black kid is going to be able to get away using this lame excuse of "I didn't know it was loaded!"

Does this poor black kid star in a movie where he's pointing a gun at someone that he believes is filled with blanks?

Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Hopefully Baldwin will be sued and lose. He's a piece of garbage.

[Tgo01]

Does this poor black kid star in a movie where he's pointing a gun at someone that he believes is filled with blanks?

Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Hopefully Baldwin will be sued and lose. He's a piece of garbage.

Just because you’re filming a movie doesn’t mean you’re suddenly not responsible for manslaughter.

[BLZrizz]

I enjoy a class conspiracy-laden rant as much as the next guy, but this was a bad case to bring and a likely loser at (criminal) trial.

I'll focus on involuntary manslaughter since NM voluntary is a heat of passion killing. (A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.)

2021 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 2 - Homicide
Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter 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.

Notes: A killing by lawful act, to be involuntary manslaughter, depends on whether the lawful act was done in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" has been held to involve the concept of "criminal negligence," which concept includes conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful. State v. Grubbs, 1973-NMCA-096, 85 N.M. 365, 512 P.2d 693, overruled on other grounds, Santillanes v. State, 1993-NMSC-012, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358; State v. Yarborough, 1995-NMCA-116, 120 N.M. 669, 905 P.2d 209.

Let's focus on "reckless, wanton, or willful" since that's the key element here.

Here are the reasons for: he pointed a weapon at someone and pulled the trigger
Reasons against: there is someone else directly and solely responsible for ensuring the weapon is safe; that person represented the weapon was safe; movie stars are told to 100% rely on those people because they are experts and not rely on their own judgment whatsoever because they are not experts.

Even if the reasons above are "tied", it's a criminal case, which means reckless, wanton, or willful conduct must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The factors against likely and will easily imo constitute reasonable doubt as to due caution and circumspection. Even if he did pull the trigger and point it at someone, he was told over and over it was a safe gun by an expert. He was going to have to point the gun at someone else and pull the trigger when the scene began, which would have resulted in some other person being shot. The whole point of the armorer is so this can be done safely. The application of the "rules of firearm safety" are completely misplaced here. It's a movie set with different rules than the outside world, where you outsource expertise to experts in a bubble and pay them for the privilege.

Armorer's horrible ineptitude is an intervening cause which will also likely contribute to reasonable doubt. The more interesting case is whether the armorer failed to exercise due caution and circumspection, a closer call in my book. But some will no doubt use it as a means to claim oh noes unequal treatment!!!11

The above said, he (or more likely his insurance company) paid a fat settlement already. There was absolutely civil liability here, and this is probably where it should have remained all along.