News Alec Baldwin Accidentally Shoots & Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director with Prop Gun

Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Locutus of Bored, Oct 22, 2021.

  1. gblews

    gblews Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Although the two of you may have concluded that Baldwin committed a crime, I have not read that the police have determined that a crime was committed.

    Additionally, I think Baldwin would be doing things much differently if he’d been arrested, or was a suspect in a criminal investigation. Police have not labeled their investigation as “criminal” in nature, to my knowledge.

    Baldwin believed, and still believes, he has committed no crime, so likely, in his view, why not tell police it was an accident? And, SO FAR, police apparemtly, agree..
     
  2. captainmkb

    captainmkb Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    besides the philosophical and existential issues of 'why do we need lawyers' there's also the issue of redundancy - at some point, all legal options under the canon of laws we live under will be predictable by and provisioned for by AI or some other type of smart filing tech -- meaning that no matter how good your human lawyer is, there is probably going to be an algorithm that can predict any and all possible arguments that any legal entity might give when faced with any law discussion - meaning it can file the optimal defense or other legal filing for you in many if not all cases. without a human lawyer existing solely to play the system for the outcome that is most profitable for the lawyer.
     
  3. the G-man

    the G-man Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    to your immediate right
    No where in any post did I "conclude" Baldwin committed a crime. I cited an article that said Baldwin may have and that, whether he did or not, he made a mistake talking to the police without his lawyer present.

    In fact, in one post, I specifically pointed out that, if Baldwin (or anyone else) is innocent (or believes they are innocent) of a crime, they should not talk to the police without an attorney in order to preserve their constitutional rights.

     
    CorporalCaptain likes this.
  4. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Location:
    JirinPanthosa
    All the arguments against lawyers fall apart when you acknowledge the ones that defend rich people aren’t the only ones to exist.

    You know how many poor people, especially in minority groups, have been imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit because they were bullied into a false confession after being tricked into waiving their right to an attorney? Or how many young people (Again mostly minorities) get tossed into for profit private prison systems for minor nonviolent crimes?

    Our system incentivizes prosecutors to care more about getting the conviction than ensuring they got the right one.

    We don’t need less lawyers, we need to force the ones we have to also defend poor people.
     
  5. flandry84

    flandry84 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Location:
    Sunshine cottage,Lollipop lane,Latveria
    The man was obviously in shock.
     
  6. Markonian

    Markonian Fleet Admiral Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Location:
    Derbyshire, UK
    So, accident or not, is this a career-ending incident?
     
  7. the G-man

    the G-man Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    to your immediate right
    I fully believe in a well-funded and fully trained vigorous public defense system. However, the idea of forcing every attorney to "also defend poor people" falls apart on several bases, from the fact that many attorneys have little, if any, criminal or civil defense training or experience (making them worse than useless to the accused) to fact of Lincoln having freed the slaves.
     
  8. XCV330

    XCV330 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    Location:
    XCV330
    Wagner and Walken both had/have long successful careers after Natalie Wood died. Of course there were only suspicions. In Alec Baldwin's case, he actually shot someone and killed them. No one thinks it was intentional, so he might recover from it, career wise, even if he does do a small spell of legal trouble for it.


    to put it in context, this is Alec Baldwin sending a voicemail to his 12 year old daughter about 15 years ago. And yet he became a media darling again a few years later. I'd say he can recover from anything.
     
    Markonian likes this.
  9. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Location:
    JirinPanthosa
    It’s a little absurd to compare a requirement for attorneys to take on X hours of pro bono cases as a requirement of bar certification to slavery.

    If a poor person can not get a competent attorney with a reasonable amount of dedicated time to work on their case, they have not received due process. This requirement would be no different from preventing hospitals from turning people away at the emergency room. Is it “Slavery” to require doctors to give emergency medical treatment to a person who can’t afford it?

    We have a mass incarceration problem in the US. And not enough resources to fulfill our constitutional obligations at the volume of cases.

    We have three choices:
    1. Reduce the case volume to a more manageable size with decriminalization of more minor infractions and investment in alternate interventions.
    2. Increase our investment in the resources to be able to offer everyone a real competent advocate with a small enough caseload to give his or her full attention to everyone’s case.
    3. Continue to just keep tossing poor people and minorities in prison regardless of guilt, proportionality or necessity without the devoted, competent advocacy guaranteed to them by the constitution.

    As long as we choose door #3 I don’t know how we as a society can sleep at night.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2022
  10. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    It's both ironic and incongruous that a cry of slavery is being made at the idea of forcing lawyers to spend some small fraction of their professional time representing the public at no charge to their clients when there's still such a thing as jury duty.
     
    Jedman67 likes this.
  11. the G-man

    the G-man Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    to your immediate right
    People can be excused from jury duty. They also get paid for jury duty when they aren't excused. Not much, but they do get paid.

    I thought I made it clear I supported the second of your listed options. But there is a huge difference between the government fulfilling its constitutional duties and setting up a forced labor system.

    Criminal cases, especially ones likely to result in an incarcerated defendant are time consuming and complex. While some cases can be resolved with a few hours work (typically a "plea bargained" case), others could require dozens or hundred of hours of effort, not simply a "fraction" of someone's time.

    Requiring an attorney (or anyone for that matter) to give up days or weeks of uncompensated and otherwise billable time is arguably a far more onerous requirement than expecting a doctor to act in an emergency. It should probably also be noted that an emergency room doctor is still being compensated by his or her employer (the hospital) whereas a solo attorney has no form of compensation other than billable hours.

    Beyond that, the simple fact of the matter is that attorneys in the U.S. tend to specialize. That specialization means that many licensed attorneys, while perhaps highly competent in one area of the law, are simply no longer (if they were ever) sufficiently qualified to provide the necessary zealous representation you and I agree that criminal defendants require. Trial work is a completely different skill set than, for example, transactional real estate practice. Forcing attorneys, as a condition of re-licensure, to take on criminal defense cases for no money is not going accomplish anything but potentially saddling a defendant with an unmotivated and unqualified attorney at time when he or she needs that attorney the most.
     
    Mr. Laser Beam likes this.
  12. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    And?

    Public defenders get paid too.

    So, the lawyers you force to be on public defender duty every now and then, for the sake of the integrity of the justice system they serve, give them a nominal salary, and it would no longer be "slavery," amiright?
     
    Jedman67 likes this.
  13. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada
    Another question is, assuming his career does recover, would he even want to? That incident is going to leave a long lasting psychological mark that he'll have to live with the rest of his life. It's traumatic. It's not something you could effectively jump right back into, like you would getting back onto a horse after being thrown off. I'd imagine a scenario where he would not want to accept a role where he has to directly interact with a gun anymore, in which case it would likely fall to having a stunt double deal with it. I could see him switching over to doing more dramatic roles than action roles.
     
    Mr. Laser Beam likes this.
  14. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    The Wormhole
    I didn't mean to imply any such thing, I just think it makes sense to have a lawyer present during any official dealings with the police, regardless if one has or has not committed a crime. And last I checked, requesting legal counsel was not sufficient enough grounds to presume guilt, regardless what some might think.
     
    Mr. Laser Beam likes this.
  15. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    The Wormhole
    Oops. I've made the correction.
     
  16. gblews

    gblews Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    You didn’t say the exact words, no, but it’s strongly implied.

    You imply the same thing here. Baldwin is not at this time “innocent” of committing a crime, although you seem convinced that a crime has been committed. According to police, no determination that a “crime” has been committed has been officially made.. That determination has yet to be made.

    Perhaps it is a subconscious belief that a crime has been committed and Baldwin is a suspect who needs a criminal defense. That may become an issue at some point, but it isn’t yet.
     
  17. the G-man

    the G-man Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    to your immediate right
    Yes. They are being compensated for a job they chose to take and, often, make a career out. How is that in any way, shape or form the same as ordering, for example, a real estate attorney to represent a murder suspect for no pay or even a stipend? And how does ordering an unqualified attorney to represent a criminal defendant restore credibility to the criminal justice system any more than just adequately and fairly compensating assigned counsel?
     
  18. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    Quote to me where I suggested such an absurd thing. And quote to me where I proposed unfairly compensating anybody.

    What I did was show that avoiding slavery was a ridiculously low bar. It's so ridiculously low that dragging it into the conversation, as you did, was absurd to begin with. If I implied anything unstated, all I implied was that a) our justice system is unjust because rich people are afforded counsel that poor people can't afford, and b) the compensation that jurors receive is unfair.
     
  19. the G-man

    the G-man Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    to your immediate right
    You seem to think the police operate in some sort of linear manner, in which they always form an opinion that a crime was committed and they then go about rounding up suspects. That is not at all the case. Often they don't reach a determination whether a crime was committed until the interview involved individuals, including potential suspects.

    Whether or not a crime has been committed is ultimately a question for the jury. We aren't there yet, obviously.

    We are at the point of whether or not there is probable cause (or maybe even just reasonable suspicion) in the minds of the government (in this case, the police) whether the elements of a particular crime (in this case, involuntary manslaughter) have been set forth with sufficient evidence to warrant charging someone.

    One of the elements of a crime to which the police seek to determine probable cause is often the mental state (intent, negligence, recklessness, lack of knowledge, etc.) of an individual when he or she committed acts which establish other elements of the suspected (but undetermined) crime. Without the requisite mental state, no crime was committed. Therefore, the police seek to interview involved actors (in the legal, not Hollywood sense) to determine if the mental state supports that a crime was committed. Part of determining mental state is asking an involved actor what he or she did as well as what he or she was thinking at the time.

    It is very possible that an involved actor, despite being innocent and lacking the requisite mental state at the time of the acts at issue, may make statements that, inadvertently, give the police cause to believe that person had the requisite mental state, thereby giving the police probable cause that a crime was committed.

    The defendant can then be arrested and charged, despite being innocent and despite no crime having been committed.
     
  20. the G-man

    the G-man Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    to your immediate right
    Force: to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something; violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
    Spend: to use up or pay out
    No: not any; not in any degree or manner;
    Charge: the price demanded for something
    Professional: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession;
    Profession: any vocation or business.
    Slavery: the state of a person who is held in forced servitude
    Servitude: a right by which something owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another