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

[gblews]

I’m citing to NYS law here, because that’s what I’m familiar with but these are general principles:


Police do not determine if a crime was committed. Rather, they form a basis as to whether, given the facts and circumstances known to them, there is a “reasonable belief” that a crime was committed (see, e.g., People v Stroman, 106 AD3d 1268 [2013]).]).

This sounds like it was written by a defense lawyer, or politicians who used to be defense lawyers. I guess the statement that police determine if a crime has been committed is too simple for them,

You got way too hung up on that first sentence, bruh. Anyway, this does not rebutt my statement at all. It simply says that the police determinr after their investigation, if they have a“reasonable belief” a crime was committed. If they determine that they don’t have a “retainable belief” crime was committed, they don’t look for suspects and make no arrests. If police conclude a crime was committed, they identify suspects, make attests, and if they believe they have the guilty parties, file charges.

But make no mistake, , it is within the powers of police to determine if a crime was committed.

Please point out the language in your post that directly rebuts what I just wrote.

Assuming the case proceeds to trial (and putting aside the concept of “jury nullifcation”), the jury must find that all elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., that a crime occurred, and the defendant’s commission thereof (see, e.g., CPL § 70.20; People v. Roldos, 112 A.D.2d 388 [1985]). This means the jury has to decide (beyond a reasonable doubt) first that a crime was committed (e.g., the elements are there) and THEN that the defendant is the one who did

Did you put the word “then” in caps, or was that part of the text you copied?

You completely misunderstood this passage. It simply is giving the procedure the jury is to follow in order to determine guilt or innocence of the defendant. If the jury acquits because they believe no crime was committed, that does not affect at all the police determination that a crime was committed. It would just be one basis for an acquittal. But officially, the recording of a crime would remain on record. It would then likely be classified as an unsolved crime,.

Think about it, when the jury verdict is read, the only thing heard from them is “guilty” or “innocent.” The jury is not asked whether or not a crime was committed. That is probably because the reasons for the verdict are I largely irrelevant.

(Note: I acknowledge under the above that a jury could find a defendant not guilty because, even though the jury finds a crime was a committed they do find sufficient evidence that the defendant was the party who committed it. However, the jury still have to find the crime was even committed to get to that point).

Do you get the difference though, between the juries’ opinion on whether or not a crime wa committed and the official determination that a crime was committed? The juries beliefs are merely their opinions which may or may not affect their verdict. If the police (and prosecutor) do not believe a crime was committed, them there is nno need for a jury because, no trial.

Beyond that, as I said before, the evidence gathering phase often begins before the police have established reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed and, depending on the nature of the suspected offense, statements made by persons of interest or suspects are what provides that reasonable cause. With this in mind, even if Baldwin (or anyone else) had a good faith belief that he or she was innocent of any crime, it was highly advisable to have an attorney present.

Let me reiterate, to my knowledge, there is still no criminal investigation going on. Therefore, there are no suspects or persons of interest. The police very well may suspect a crime occurred, but to date, they have not made it clear that they even suspect a crime was committed. That may change at some point, but we’re not there yet, unless you have information to the contrary. If so, post it.

Also, as I said before, Baldwin is not “innocent,” ne has not been charged or identified as a suspect ot person of interest. And I’m sure he feels he I’d behaving accordingly.[/QUOTE]

 

[the G-man]

This sounds like it was written by a defense lawyer, or politicians who used to be defense lawyers. I guess the statement that police determine if a crime has been committed is too simple for them,

It really doesn't matter who wrote it. The law (as expressed in the ruling cited) says what it says.

At this point, it's pretty clear you want to believe what you want to believe so I won't waste any more time in the law library. For your sake, however, I hope if you're ever questioned by the police, whether you think you're guilty or innocent, whether the police think a crime was committed or not, you lawyer up first.

 

[gblews]

It really doesn't matter who wrote it. The law (as expressed in the ruling cited) says what it says.

Only, it doesn’t say what you think it says. Oh, and for the record I didn’t say that the professions of the authors of the cited you quoted mar reread. It was just an observation. You misunderstood that as well.

At this point, it's pretty clear you want to believe what you want to believe so I won't waste any more time in the law library.

“”in the library”? Stop, You found this stuff online and copied and pasted it in.. Nothing wrong with that, so why the subterfuge? Anyway, as I said, I think you misunderstood most of what you copied anyway, “law library” or not.

I offered logical explanations of the stuff you posted here and a rebuttal to your nterpretation of the citations you posted. If you can explain to me why your interpretation of your cited are actually correct, please post it.

 

[the G-man]

Only, it doesn’t say what you think it says. Oh, and for the record I didn’t say that the professions of the authors of the cited you quoted mar reread. It was just an observation. You misunderstood that as well. “”in the library”? Stop, You found this stuff online and copied and pasted it in.. Nothing wrong with that, so why the subterfuge? Anyway, as I said, I think you misunderstood most of what you copied anyway, “law library” or not. I offered logical explanations of the stuff you posted here and a rebuttal to your nterpretation of the citations you posted. If you can explain to me why your interpretation of your cited are actually correct, please post it.

Yep, you got me. Never set foot in a law library in my life and never do.

Spoiler

Anyway, lunch hour's over and it's time to get back to work misunderstanding everything in those books and others like them. As I said before, it's clear you want to believe what you want to believe so good luck and god bless.

 

[Timby]

Yep, you got me. Never set foot in a law library in my life and never do.

Spoiler

Anyway, lunch hour's over and it's time to get back to work misunderstanding everything in those books and others like them. As I said before, it's clear you want to believe what you want to believe so good luck and god bless.

I believe the legal term for this is "flawless victory."

Or maybe that's Mortal Kombat.

Or both. Either way. Well-played savagery.

 

[gblews]

What?!?

Yeah, I had a feeling my saying Baldwin is not “innocent” would snap your head back.

I meant “innocent” from a legal standpoint. Since, to date, there has been no official determination that a crime was committed, there currently are no “suspects,” no “defendants,” at least to dare, and no one has been found guilty or innocent…yet.

Oh yeah, you understand
it all.

BTW, if you really went to a law library, then I admit, I was wrong and surprised. But being in a law library by itself, would obviously not automatically increase one’s understanding of any material found found there, no?

 

[gblews]

I believe the legal term for this is "flawless victory."

Or maybe that's Mortal Kombat.

Or both. Either way. Well-played savagery.

And in times like these, one should take solace in any victory, no matter the size, I say.

 

[the G-man]

Alec Baldwin and Others Could Face Charges in ‘Rust’ Shooting, D.A. Says In a funding request, the Santa Fe County district attorney said that up to four people potentially face criminal charges in the shooting death of a cinematographer on a film set last year.

Looks like a criminal investigation was going on all this time, and now the case is going to the DA to possibly charge…without anyone being charged by police, a determination a crime was committed, a suspect being named and/or a criminal probe being announced, after all.

 

[the G-man]

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

Alec Baldwin will be criminally charged by New Mexico prosecutors for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film “Rust,” authorities said Thursday.

Baldwin, the Emmy-winning star of “30 Rock” and dozens of films including “The Hunt for Red October,” shot the bullet that killed Hutchins. Baldwin said he “didn’t pull the trigger” in an ABC interview. An FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News uncovered that despite Baldwin’s denial, the gun could not have gone off without the pull of a trigger.
​

Hmmmm....so much for the "if the police haven't determined a crime has been convicted, Baldwin isn't a suspect and should feel free to gab to the cops" theory.

(Of course, the charges are merely accusations and Baldwin remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law).

 

[valkyrie013]

and "Rust" film armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed was also charged.

One of the counts is for involuntary manslaughter, in which prosecutors will have to prove there is underlying negligence, prosecutors said. This is a fourth-degree felony that carries a sentence of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

The second charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act, a more severe charge which requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death, prosecutors said. This charge includes a firearm enhancement, which adds a mandatory penalty of five years in jail.

“Rust” assistant director David Halls signed a plea deal for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, resulting in a suspended sentence and six months of probation.

About time in my opinion. Probably both plea, and get what the assistant director got. Slap on the wrist.

 

[XCV330]

If anything good comes from this, it will be last time there's a negligent shooting death on a set.

 

[auntiehill]

We can only hope.

 

[KennyB]

If anything good comes from this, it will be last time there's a negligent shooting death on a set.

Sadly I most likely won't be----you can make all the rules in the world.....but people must FOLLOW them.

 

[Non Sync]

As the armorer, Reed had a greater responsibility for the weapons on the set. She failed to keep them secure when not in use for filming, she should have been the one that loaded the weapon with blanks, and she should have made sure there were not any live rounds anywhere near the props (ideally nowhere near the set period).

Should Baldwin checked the gun when it was given to him? Yes, but he would have been the third final check in the sequence. Six months' probation seems pretty light for Halls role.

 

[XCV330]

As the armorer, Reed had a greater responsibility for the weapons on the set. She failed to keep them secure when not in use for filming, she should have been the one that loaded the weapon with blanks, and she should have made sure there were not any live rounds anywhere near the props (ideally nowhere near the set period).

Should Baldwin checked the gun when it was given to him? Yes, but he would have been the third final check in the sequence. Six months' probation seems pretty light for Halls role.

One thing about Baldwin checking the gun, this was not a modern swing-out cylinder revolver or even an old top-break. The saa only has a little gate to side of the hammer. You have to put it on half-cock, open the gate and turn the cylinder to be sure. Since you never load all 6, you then have to make sure you put the hammer back on the empty cylinder. I'm not saying he's not to blame but I agree she had more responsibility.

 

[Owain Taggart]

As the armorer, Reed had a greater responsibility for the weapons on the set. She failed to keep them secure when not in use for filming, she should have been the one that loaded the weapon with blanks, and she should have made sure there were not any live rounds anywhere near the props (ideally nowhere near the set period).

Yeah, I'm surprised the armorer didn't end up with a steeper charge than she ended up getting, given what happened. It was her responsibility and she failed at it.

 

[Sci]

I want to know more about the underlying cause of why safety seems to have been so lackidasical in general on the set -- not just from the armorer but apparently from other departments too, since there was a walk-off. In particular I want to know what role the other producers played in creating these conditions -- did they put pressure on the crew to cut corners on safety for the sake of saving money?

 

[Timby]

I want to know more about the underlying cause of why safety seems to have been so lackidasical in general on the set -- not just from the armorer but apparently from other departments too, since there was a walk-off. In particular I want to know what role the other producers played in creating these conditions -- did they put pressure on the crew to cut corners on safety for the sake of saving money?

That's generally what happens in situations like these, and it's precisely what happened when Brandon Lee was killed while filming The Crow.

 

[Sci]

That's generally what happens in situations like these, and it's precisely what happened when Brandon Lee was killed while filming The Crow.

If that's the case, I wonder what kinds of criminal and civil penalties those producers might also face.

 

[XCV330]

If that's the case, I wonder what kinds of criminal and civil penalties those producers might also face.

Baldwin WAS the producer.
Since Souza was one of the people shot, he's not exactly going to get prosecuted, and Baldwin won't be prosecuted for shooting him.