Alec Baldwin shooting

[ClydeR]

The development came after prosecutors received new information in the case — that Baldwin's prop gun had been modified before being delivered to the low-budget western in October 2021, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.

The replica of the vintage weapon — a Colt .45 revolver — had been fitted with a new trigger, increasing the odds that the gun might have misfired, as Baldwin has said, according to the sources.

More...

I knew, and said, there was something fishy about that ridiculous FBI report where the gun fired without the trigger being pulled and then the FBI said that, although that's the only time it fired in their tests, it would be impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled.

[ClydeR]

The prosecutors are reserving the right to refile..

“Over the last few days and in preparation for the May 3, 2023, preliminary hearing, new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case against Alexander “Alec” Rae Baldwin, III. Consequently, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. We therefore will be dismissing the involuntary manslaughter charges against Mr. Baldwin to conduct further investigation. This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled. Our follow-up investigation will remain active and on-going.”

Despite reports earlier in the day that former Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed would also see her charges dropped, her status has not changed. “Charges against Hannah Gutierrez-Reed remain unchanged,” the prosecutors said tonight.

More...

[Tgo01]

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.

That is absolute bullshit that you can delegate your personal responsibility to a third party like that. In what other scenario can you kill a person then just say "Well it's not MY fault! I'm just an idiot! That person told me it was safe!"

Exactly no other scenario affords such a blanket "get out of jail free" card. Everyone keeps harping on the fact that it was a movie set. So? But perhaps I am indeed ignorant about this and there is some sort of law written stating that movie stars are special and above the rest of us mere mortals where they can point a loaded gun at another human being, willingly pull the trigger and kill said person, then just sit back and say "Yeah not my fault. That person over there who had absolutely nothing to do with handing be the gun and telling me it was safe is the real guilty party."

Because if such a law does indeed exist then please cite it.

[Suppressed Poet]

Baldwin addressing the court:

[Tgo01]

Baldwin addressing the court:

The most infuriating part (from what I have read anyways) is that Alec Baldwin never once had to step foot in a court or a prison over this.

[BLZrizz]

That is absolute bullshit that you can delegate your personal responsibility to a third party like that. In what other scenario can you kill a person then just say "Well it's not MY fault! I'm just an idiot! That person told me it was safe!"

Exactly no other scenario affords such a blanket "get out of jail free" card. Everyone keeps harping on the fact that it was a movie set. So? But perhaps I am indeed ignorant about this and there is some sort of law written stating that movie stars are special and above the rest of us mere mortals where they can point a loaded gun at another human being, willingly pull the trigger and kill said person, then just sit back and say "Yeah not my fault. That person over there who had absolutely nothing to do with handing be the gun and telling me it was safe is the real guilty party."

Because if such a law does indeed exist then please cite it.

Ok, I'll give it a try. Generally criminal liability is only established when two things are present: an "actus reus" (the criminal act) and a "mens rea" which is the "criminal" state of mind as outlined by the law. This is more of a legal principle that applies writ large than a specific law. Looking at the NM invol man statute, the state of mind required is to be reckless, wanton, and so on.

You're right that a movie set is a unique place, mostly because it's a place that by its existence is supposed to mimic or demonstrate acts, many of which are inherently dangerous, for purposes of art/entertainment. So it really is a place that is a bit outside reality. There is a burden of due care (i.e. what the "resonable person" would do) in the real world, but this is different on a movie set, where you are purposefully engaging in dangerous or harmful activities for show. This due care burden of a movie performer is to rely on the set experts 100%. So that burden then shifts to professionals whose responsibility and expertise it is to assume this due care for the performers on set. This doens't really exist anywhere else, which is why this is an odd/interesting case, legally speaking.

So going back to AB. If we look in his mind, can we establish a wanton, reckless mindset? One example of a such a mindset is if an individual takes a loaded weapon and shoots it into a crowd thinking, I wonder if this will hit or kill someone. It may reflect a lack of specific intent to kill an individual, but evinces a mindset that wantonly disregards the probable consequences of his actions. If I had to jump into AB's mind, he was probably rehearsing his lines, getting into character thinking about what kind of poses he was going to do. He was then handed a gun by a professional armorer who said "cold gun" and in his mind he though "ok, good to go, back to my lines. I'll pull the trigger here and here because I'm fidgety or nervous or bored but it's a cold gun so no issues..." and then it went off.

As a prosecutor, the actus reus is there, but the reckless mens rea is not something I would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt given the facts above.

[Gelston]

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!"

They have to prove that he was knowingly and willfully acting in a reckless manner. They don't feel they have enough evidence to prove he was beyond a reasonable doubt.

This looks like a great civil lawsuit against him and the production though.

[Seran]

The charge of involuntary manslaughter has been officially dropped. The investigation continues, but unless there are further developments looks like he's off the hook.

[Methais]

The charge of involuntary manslaughter has been officially dropped. The investigation continues, but unless there are further developments looks like he's off the hook.

Thanks for the breaking news update

[Tgo01]

the state of mind required is to be reckless, wanton, and so on.

Sounds good. He pointed a real firearm at another human being and pulled the trigger. Sounds pretty gosh darn reckless and wanton to me.

I would be giving Alec Killer all the benefit of the doubt if he personally looked at the chambers to make sure there are no bullets in them and maybe fired at the ground/in the air a few times first to make sure it didn't have any bullets in it. Then maybe I'd say okay sure, he did all he could to ensure there were no real bullets in the gun. But even he admits he didn't do that. He admits all he did was have someone hand him a real gun and say it was safe and that's good enough for him! Apparently when you're a rich Hollywood douchebag you can delegate your gross negligence to a third party.